Punjab-Haryana High Court
Darshan Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 8 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047260
CRR-2951-2023 (O&M) Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:047260
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Reserved on : April 05, 2024
Date of Decision : April 08, 2024
CRR-2951-2023 (O&M)
Darshan Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Argued By : - Mr. Prateek Pandit, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Amandeep Singh, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Barjinder Singh, Advocate for respondent No2.
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
Petitioner was tried by the Court of learned Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Kharar, in a case arising out of FIR No.07 dated
13.01.2015, under Sections 279, 427 and 304-A IPC, registered at Police
Station City Kharar, in criminal case bearing No.PBSAA1-000201-2015.
Vide judgment dated 21.02.2017, petitioner was held to be guilty for the
commission of offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and convicted
thereunder accordingly. Vide a separate order of even date, he was
sentenced as under:-
Sr. Offence convicted Sentence awarded Fine Default
No. u/s imprisonment
1. 279 IPC R.I. for 06 months ₹100/- R.I. for 15 days
2. 304-A IPC R.I. for 02 years ₹200/- R.I. for 01 month
Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
Page no.1 out of 8 pages
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047260
CRR-2951-2023 (O&M) Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:047260
2. In appeal [CNR N: PBSA01-001581-2017] against the
aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, learned Addl.
Sessoins Judge, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, maintained the conviction vide
judgment dated 22.11.2023, though reduced the substantive sentence to
01 year.
3. Against the aforesaid concurrent findings of conviction as
recorded by the Court below, this revision has been filed.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that both
the Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence in right perspective,
inasmuch as identity of the petitioner as a driver of the offending vehicle,
was not at all established. Learned counsel points out that in the FIR, it is
clearly mentioned that when Daljinder Singh alongwith Gurpreet Singh
reached the spot, by that time the driver had fled away from the spot.
Learned counsel points out further that there is nothing in the FIR to
show that complainant - Daljinder Singh was able to see the face of the
driver of the offending vehicle. Learned counsel contends that in these
circumstances, statement of PW3 - Daljinder Singh during trial,
identifying the petitioner to be the driver of the offending vehicle, is not
believable in the absence of any test identification parade. Attention is
further drawn towards the testimony of PW4 - Gurpreet Singh, who
improved his statement during trial by stating that he had seen the driver,
when he was alighting from the same after causing the accident, but
nothing to this effect was stated by him in the statement recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. during investigation, to which he was duly
Page no.2 out of 8 pages
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047260
CRR-2951-2023 (O&M) Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:047260
confronted. Learned counsel contends that the only other evidence with
the prosecution was the statement of PW7 - Karnail Singh, the owner of
the offending vehicle, who had allegedly produced the petitioner before
the Investigating Officer, but said PW7 - Karnail Singh did not support
the prosecution version during trial. It is urged that in all these facts and
circumstances, the identity of the petitioner as driver of the offending
vehicle, was not at all established and so, he has been wrongly convicted
by the Trial Court and his conviction has been wrongly maintained by the
Appellate Court.
5. Learned State counsel has opposed the petition by submitting
that Ld. Courts below have discussed the evidence produced by the
prosecution at length and rightly came to the conclusion that it is the
petitioner-accused, who was driving the offending vehicle.
6. I have considered submissions of both the sides and have
appraised the Trial Court record as available on the Document
Management System (DMS) of this Court.
7.1 FIR (Annexure P-1) was lodged on the statement of
Daljinder Singh (examined as PW 3 during trial), as per which on
13.01.2015, his father Parminder Singh (deceased) had left on his
motorcycle bearing registration No.PB-12N-1455 for his work at village
Dau; whereas he (Daljinder Singh) alongwith Gurpreet Singh (examined
as PW 4 during trial) was behind him on a separate motorcycle and going
for some work at Mohali. As they reached near Bansa Wali Chungi, his
father while driving his motorcycle was going ahead of them, when a
Page no.3 out of 8 pages
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047260
CRR-2951-2023 (O&M) Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:047260
tipper bearing registration No.PB-65L-7086, being driven by an unknown
person came from behind at high speed and in careless manner struck
against the motorcycle of his father, who fell on the road and tyre of the
tipper ran over him, causing serious injuries. It was further stated by
Daljinder Singh that by the time they stopped their motorcycle, the
unknown driver of the tipper had ran away from the spot by leaving the
tipper behind. With the help of passersby, they arranged a vehicle and
took injured Parminder Singh to the Government Hospital, Mohali, but he
succumbed to injuries.
7.2 Further prosecution case is that on next day, i.e. 14.01.2015,
Karnail Singh (examined as PW7 during trial), the owner of the
offending vehicle produced accused - Darshan Singh (petitioner herein)
alongwith the documents of the tipper and the driving licence of the
petitioner, which were taken into possession. Necessary investigation was
carried out and after completion thereof, final report under Section 173
Cr.P.C. was filed.
8. During trial, both PW3 Daljinder Singh as well as PW4
Gurpreet Singh supported the prosecution case regarding the negligence
of the driver of the tipper in causing the accident, which resulted into the
death of Parminder Singh. Before this Court, facts to this extent that
accident was caused by tipper No.PB-65L-7086 due to rash and negligent
driving of its driver, which resulted into the death of Parminder Singh, are
not in dispute. It is also undisputed that the offending vehicle as well as
motorcycle of the deceased were recovered from the spot itself. The sole
Page no.4 out of 8 pages
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047260
CRR-2951-2023 (O&M) Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:047260
dispute before this Court is regarding the identity of driver of the
offending vehicle, as to whether it is the petitioner, who was behind the
driving wheel of the same.
9. It may be noted at the outset that the two alleged eye
witnesses, namely Daljinder Singh (PW3) and Gurpreet Singh (PW4) are
close relatives of the deceased, inasmuch as PW3 is the son of the
deceased and PW4 is the brother of the deceased. Though, the testimonies
of such relative witnesses cannot be brushed aside simply because that
they are relatives of the deceased, but at the same time, the same are
required to be examined with caution.
10. PW 3 - Dajinder Singh, complainant of the case though
stated during his testimony that accused was driving the offending
vehicle, but admitted during cross-examination that police had told him
the name of the driver in the police station, where he had seen him
(driver) for the first time and that after seeing the accused in the police
station, he was seeing him in the Court for the first time. Since, it is the
conceded case of the prosecution that accused was produced in the police
station by Karnail Singh on 14.01.2015, i.e. next day of the accident; and
PW 3 saw him for the first time in the police station and it is the police,
who told him the name, it is obvious that PW3 Dajinder Singh had not
seen the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident, i.e. on
13.01.2015. As such, testimony of PW 3 Daljinder Singh regarding
identity of the accused-petitioner as driver of the offending vehicle, is not
at all reliable.
Page no.5 out of 8 pages
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047260
CRR-2951-2023 (O&M) Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:047260
11. Coming to testimony of PW4- Gurpreet Singh, though he
also established the identity of accused-petitioner to be the driver of the
offending vehicle during trial, but has made lot of material improvements,
rendering him unworthy of credit. According to him, he had seen the
driver of the truck/tipper, when he was alighting from the same after
causing the accident. He pleaded ignorance as to whether he had
disclosed this fact to the police or not. He was duly confronted with the
statement (Ex. DX) recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein this fact
is nowhere mentioned. In case, PW4 Gurpreet Singh; or PW3 Daljinder
Singh had seen the face of the driver of the offending vehicle, they must
have disclosed the said fact to the police, but it is not so.
12. Further, PW4 - Gurpreet Singh puts more dent in his
testimony, when he said that when they were getting the FIR registered,
accused was present at the spot. The same is factually incorrect because
FIR was registered on 13.01.2015 and the driver had fled away from the
spot and the accused was produced by Karnail Singh only on 14.01.2015.
It is neither in the statement of PW3 nor in the statement of PW 8 - ASI
Amar Nath, the Investigating Officer of the case that accused was present
at the time of recording of the FIR on 13.01.2015. Not only this, PW4 is
unable to tell as to whether the motorcycle of deceased Parminder Singh
was 500 meters ahead of them or 1000 meters ahead of them.
13. In view of above material contradictions, when the statement
of PW4 is read as a whole, it indicates that he was not even present at the
spot and has been introduced as an eye witness of the occurrence later on.
Page no.6 out of 8 pages
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047260
CRR-2951-2023 (O&M) Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:047260
In these circumstances, his statement is absolutely not reliable regarding
the identity of the accused-petitioner as a driver of the offending vehicle.
14. As per prosecution, PW7 - Karnail Singh, admittedly the
owner of the offending vehicle produced the accused-petitioner on
14.01.2015 in the police station alongwith documents of the vehicle,
which were taken into possession. However, said Karnail Singh during
his testimony before the Court, turned hostile and denied to have
produced the accused before the police. The Courts below have
disbelieved his part of the testimony to the extent that he had not
produced the accused after observing that he is admittedly the owner of
the offending tipper and that documents of the vehicle and the driving
licence of the accused were produced and that in case, accused was not
the driver, why he would produce him. The said logic given by the Courts
below, is absolutely not sustainable. Simply because PW7 Karnail Singh
is the owner of the offending tipper and had produced the documents of
the vehicle, cannot be a reason to come to the conclusion that he must
have produced the same person, who was driving the offending tipper at
the relevant time.
15. PW8 - Amar Nath, the Investigating Officer of the case,
admitted during cross-examination that no test identification was
conducted by him. There is nothing in the prosecution case to show that
when the offending vehicle was taken into possession from the spot, any
document of accused-petitioner, connecting him with the crime, was
found from the spot. Had the driving licence of the accused-petitioner or
Page no.7 out of 8 pages
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047260
CRR-2951-2023 (O&M) Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:047260
any document pertaining to him been collected from the tipper recovered
from the spot, presumption could have been raised that he was the driver,
but there is no such evidence on record.
16. On account of the entire discussion as above, it is held that
the conviction of the petitioner as recorded by the Trial Court and as
affirmed by the Appellate Court, cannot be sustained. Prosecution has
failed to prove that it is the accused-petitioner, who was driving the
offending tipper at the relevant time, beyond reasonable doubts.
17. As such, the present revision is hereby allowed. The
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.02.2017
passed by the Trial Court and as affirmed by the Appellate Court vide
judgment dated 22.11.2023, are hereby set aside. Petitioner is acquitted of
the charges and is also discharged from his bonds.
April 08, 2024 (DEEPAK GUPTA)
Sarita JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
Page no.8 out of 8 pages
8 of 8
