Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parveen Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 1 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042987
CRR-1666-2019 (O&M) Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:042987
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Reserved on : March 22, 2024
Date of Decision : April 01, 2024
CRR-1666-2019 (O&M
Parveen Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Argued By : - Ms. Tanu Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Randhir Singh, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
This revision is directed against the concurrent findings of
conviction recorded by the Courts below.
2. In a criminal case arising out of FIR No.392 dated 05.08.2015,
registered at Police Station Sadar Panipat, petitioner - Parveen Kumar, was
convicted under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC, vide judgment dated
05.02.2018 by Ld. JMIC, Panipat. He was sentenced for varying period of
imprisonments for committing these offences vide a separate order dated
06.02.2018. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by learned
Sessions Judge, Panipat on 03.06.2019.
3.1 As per the prosecution case, on getting information regarding
admission of Devasish and Sajan at General Hospital, Panipat, having
sustained injuries in a road side accident, police party headed by ASI Naresh
reached there. By that time, injured had been shifted to Virk Hospital,
Karnal. Police party reached there and after getting opinion from the doctor,
Page no.1 out of 7 pages
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042987
CRR-1666-2019 (O&M) Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:042987
statement of injured - Sajan was recorded, as the other injured Devasish was
declared unfit.
3.2 Statement was made by Sajan to the effect that on 04.08.2015,
he along with his friends Devasish and Mukesh (deceased) were returning
from Delhi towards Karnal in car No.HR-12K-4005. Car was being driven
by Mukesh. He (Sajan) was sitting on the conductor seat, whereas Devasish
on the back seat. At about 10.30 p.m. as they reached near village Passina
Kalan turn, a tractor attached with a water tanker, being driven rashly and
negligently, suddenly took turn towards the right side, without giving any
signal, due to which the car hit the back side of the water tanker and was
damaged. All the occupants of the car sustained injuries. Mukesh died at the
spot. He (Sajan) had noted down the registration number of the offending
tractor to be HR-06Y-3341. The water tanker was not having any reflector.
3.3 FIR was registered. Necessary investigation was completed.
Final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed in the Court. Accused
Parveen Kumar -petitioner was put on trial. Charges under Sections 279,
337, 338, 304-A IPC were framed. 09 witnesses were examined by the
prosecution. Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was
recorded. Opportunity to lead defence evidence was given. After hearing
both the sides, conviction was recorded by the Trial Court, which has been
upheld by the Appellate Court.
4.1 Challenging the conviction, it is contended by learned
counsel for the petitioner that both the Courts below have committed
grave error by not appreciating the evidence properly and have acted
against the principles of criminal jurisprudence.
Page no.2 out of 7 pages
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042987
CRR-1666-2019 (O&M) Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:042987
4.2 Prosecution case is dependent on the sole testimony of PW1
Sajan @ Gurpreet, whose statement is quite contrary to the site plan of
the lace of accident and the mechanical inspection reports of the two
vehicles and so, does not inspire confidence. Learned counsel contends
further that the other injured - Devasish, whose version under Section
161 Cr.P.C. is in conformity with the site plan, has not been examined by
the prosecution.
4.3 Further attention is drawn towards the fact that the medical
officer, who conducted postmortem examination of deceased Mukesh was
not examined and so, it cannot be stated that Mukesh died due to
accidental injuries. Had the Medical Officer been examined, the
petitioner would have got opportunity to prove the defence version that in
fact deceased was driving the car at high speed under the influence of
liquor.
4.4 Learned counsel contends that the entire circumstances
would clearly indicate that in fact, the car hit the water tanker from
behind and so, the story of the prosecution based upon the testimony of
PW1 to the effect that tractor driver tried to take right turn suddenly and
car hit the front side, is not believable.
4.5 Prayer is made for setting aside the impugned judgments of
conviction; and to acquit the petitioner by allowing this revision.
5. Opposing the petition, learned State counsel contends that
the findings of facts as recorded by the Trial Court is affirmed by the
Appellate Court and that there is no scope for interference. He defended
Page no.3 out of 7 pages
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042987
CRR-1666-2019 (O&M) Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:042987
the impugned judgments and prayed for dismissal of the revision petition.
6. I have considered submissions of both the sides and perused
the trial court record as available on Document Management System
(DMS) of this court.
7. Before this Court, petitioner neither denies the accident nor
the fact that he was driving the offending tractor. However, he has
seriously disputed the manner of accident as projected by the prosecution.
8. Since, it is admitted position that Mukesh was driving the car
and he died on the spot as a result of collision between the car and the
tractor being driven by the petitioner, so much significance cannot be
attached to the fact that postmortem report has not been proved by
examining the concerned medical officer; or that it is not proved that
Mukesh died due to accidental negligence.
9. As per the testimony of PW1- Sajan @ Gurpreet, the water
tanker fitted with the tractor coming from the opposite side, suddenly he
tried to take turn suddenly towards right, without giving any signal and
hit the car. As per him, tractor was not going ahead of the car. The said
statement of PW1, the sole eye witness as has been examined by the
prosecution, is totally contradicted by the site plan (Ex.PW5/H); as well
as the mechanical inspection reports of two vehicles Ex. PW7/A and
PW7/B.
10. The accident occurred on the G.T. Road, as the car was
traveling from Delhi towards Karnal. An examination of the site plan
reveals a divider along the road, with a break at the turn for village
Page no.4 out of 7 pages
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042987
CRR-1666-2019 (O&M) Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:042987
Passina Kalan. This turn is only accessible from the right side, when
approaching from Delhi, while it would be on the left side for those
coming from Karnal. Since it is established by the prosecution that the
tractor turned right at this point, it implies that both the tractor and the car
were moving in the same direction, from Delhi towards Karnal, as is also
depicted in the site plan. Testimony of PW1 suggesting that the tractor
came from Panipat/Karnal or denying its position ahead of the car, is
contradicted by the site plan. Additionally, if the tractor indeed came from
Panipat/Karnal and attempted a right turn without giving any signal, it
would be inconsistent with the layout of the road, as the village Pasina
Kallan is on the left side from that direction.
11. Not only above, perusal of the mechanical examination
reports (Ex.PW7/A and PW7/B) totally demolishes the prosecution case.
The report of the tractor reveals that colour of car was present at the rear
side of the water tanker. It is further reported that the rear angle of the
water tanker and the bolts of the angle were broken. On the other hand,
the mechanical examination report of the car reveals that front side of the
car was totally damaged and dented. The roof, the fender, the bonnet and
the glass were totally broken. These two reports of the mechanical
examination of the two vehicles involved in the accident would leave no
doubt in holding that car had hit the tractor attached with the water tanker
from behind and not from the front side, as has been tried to be projected
by the prosecution through the statement of PW1.
Page no.5 out of 7 pages
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042987
CRR-1666-2019 (O&M) Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:042987
12. The contention of learned State counsel to the effect that
petitioner had not given any signal and that the water tanker was not
having any reflector, becomes insignificant, once it is found that the
accident had not taken place in the manner as has been projected by the
prosecution.
13. The testimony of PW1 Sajan @ Gurpreet is absolutely not
reliable, having regard to the circumstances depicted from the site plan
and the mechanical examination reports of the two vehicles as have been
discussed above. Though, the Courts below referred about these
documents, but failed to notice the implication thereof vis-a-vis the
statement of PW1.
14. Further, the damage to the front side of the car would itself
indicate that as to at what speed, the car must be coming when it hit the
tractor fixed with water tanker from behind. Even if, it be assumed that
petitioner driving the tractor suddenly applied the brakes to take turn
towards the right side, that in itself cannot be considered to be gross
negligence on his part because as per Rules of the Road Regulations,
1989, the driver of a motor vehicle moving behind another vehicle, is
required to keep a sufficient distance from the other vehicle to avoid
collision, if the vehicle in front suddenly slowed down or stopped.
15. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, the impugned
judgment dated 05.02.2018 and order of sentence dated 06.02.2018
passed by the Trial Court; and as have been affirmed by the Appellate
Court vide judgment dated 03.06.2019, cannot be sustained. These are
Page no.6 out of 7 pages
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042987
CRR-1666-2019 (O&M) Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:042987
hereby set aside. Petitioner is acquitted of all the charges. He is also
discharged from his bonds. Petition is accordingly allowed.
April 01, 2024 (DEEPAK GUPTA)
Sarita JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
Page no.7 out of 7 pages
7 of 7
