Delhi High Court
State (Delhi Administration) vs Giasa Ram on 27 September, 1988
Equivalent citations: 1989 (1) Crimes 49, 36 (1988) DLT 299
Author: C Talwar
Bench: C Talwar, M Chawla
JUDGMENT
Charanjit Talwar, J.
(1) Giasa Ram was tried under Sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations against him were that on 4th June, 1974 at about 10.3J Am he was driving truck No. Dll 9692 in the locality of Rani Bagh in such a manner as to endanger human life and public safety and thereby caused grievous hurt to one Pushpa. He wai also tried for the offence under Section 88/112 of the Motor vehicles Act. After trial the learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide his judgment of 2nd February, 1978 acquitted Giasa Ram.
(2) The main ground on which the acquittal is based is that the driver of the truck who had admittedly run away from the spot after causing the accident was not got identified in the identification parade after his arrest.
(3) By this appeal the State has challenged the validity and legality of the said judgment. With the assistance of Mr. Lao, we have gone through the record.
(4) Apart from the injured, three eye-witnesses to the occurrence had been produced. PW-1 Asa Ram was unable to recognise Giasa Ram (respondent herein) as the driver of the vehicle. PW-2 Bal Mukand had to admit in his cross-examination that he saw the driver at the time when he was brought back to the scene of occurrence by the owner of the truck PW-4 Khushi Ram. It is implicit in PW-2's statement that be had not seen Giasa Ram driving the truck or running away from the spot after the accident. Similarly PW-3 Suman Vyas admitted that the driver had run away but he could identify him (Giasa Ram) only because he had been brought back by the owner of the truck to the spot. It appears that an attempt had been made by the Investigating Officer to show the respondent herein to the witness Suinan Vyas (Public Witness -3) in the Police Station on 20th August, 1974.
(5) Mr. Lao, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the statement of PW-4 Khushi Ram, who is the owner of the truck, implicating the respondent ought to have been accepted by the trial court. According to Khushi Ram, the respondent admitted before him that he had caused, the accident.
(6) We find that the circumstances brought out in the testimony of PW-4 Khushi Ram have not been put to the accused in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That error cannot be considered to be a mere technicality. The statement was recorded on 7th December, 1977 and the incident, as we have noticed, is of 4th June, 1974. After a delay of over 14 years, we are not prepared to re-open the case as urged by the counsel and remand the same for re-trial.
(7) As noticed above, the learned trial court took the view that as the driver of the truck bad run away from the spot and could not be arrested there and then, he was to be put in identification parade on his arrest to enable the witnesses to identify him. This finding of the trial court regarding the non-holding of the identification parade, cannot be said to be unreasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Following the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Babu & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in Air 1983 Sc 308, we do not propose to interfere with that finding.
(8) There is no merit in this appeal. It is dismissed.
