Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amarjit Singh vs State Of Pb on 22 March, 2024
Author: Kirti Singh
Bench: Kirti Singh
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041964
CRR-276-2006 (O&M) 1
2024:PHHC:041964
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.301
CRR-276-2006 (O&M)
Reserved on : 01.03.2024
Pronounced on: 22.03.2024
Amarjit Singh ..... Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab ..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
Present: Mr. Akshit Pathania, Advocate (Amicus Curiae)
for the petitioner.
Mr. Aftab Singh Khara, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
*****
KIRTI SINGH, J.
The present revision petition has been preferred against the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.08.2005 passed by
the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda, whereby the petitioner has
been convicted for commission of offences punishable under Sections
279, 304-A and 338 IPC in case FIR No.54 dated 08.08.2000 registered at
Police Station Thermal, Bathinda and has been sentenced as under:-
Section of IPC RI Fine In default of payment of fine
279 Six months Rs.500/- Further undergo RI for 15 days
304-A Two years Rs.1000/- Further undergo RI for 30 days
338 One year Rs.500/- Further undergo RI for 15 days
2. The trial Court had ordered that all the sentences shall run
concurrently.
3. A further challenge has been raised to the judgment dated
20.01.2006 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track
1 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041964
Court, Bathinda whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda has been affirmed.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits
that he has various grounds to challenge the judgment of conviction which
are mentioned as under:-
(i) the sole witness Vinod Kumar turned hostile.
(ii) the test identification parade was done in the Court for the
first time when the trial was going on and not before that.
(iii) the testimony of the defence witness was totally ignored.
(iv) there are material contradictions in the statement of
prosecution witnesses.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent-State submits that the prosecution has duly established the case
against the petitioner and that on account of his rash and negligent driving, a
person has lost his life. He further submits that the judgment of both the
Courts below have been passed after considering the entire evidence and
material on the record. The other factual aspects have not been rebutted by
the learned counsel for the State. He has produced on record the custody
certificate of the petitioner which is taken on record. As per the custody
certificate, the period of custody as stated by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is correct.
6. The brief background of the prosecution case is that FIR No.54
dated 08.08.2000 was registered under Sections 279, 337, 304-A and 427
IPC on the statement of PW2 DSP-Kaka Singh who stated that he was
travelling in his Government gypsy bearing No.PB-08B-2996 which was
2 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041964
driven by Constable Mangal Ram (since deceased) and his gunman
Constable Kuldeep Singh was also with them. He alongwith abovesaid
persons were going to his residence to have lunch and one Vinod Kumar
Mittal, employee of NFL, also joined them. When the driver of gypsy
turned towards Bathinda city, then one truck bearing No.RJ-13G-5212 came
at high speed from Goniana side and hit the gypsy in which the complainant
and the deceased were travelling and on account of the injuries received the
said Constable Mangal Ram died whereas Constable Kuldeep Singh, Vinod
Kumar Mittal and the complainant suffered injuries. It has been alleged that
it was the present petitioner who was driving the offending vehicle. After
investigation, the challan was presented and the charges were framed. The
prosecution examined 14 witnesses.
7. Statement of the accused was recorded under section 313
Cr.P.C. wherein the incriminating evidence appearing against the accused in
the statements of witnesses was put to him, but the accused denied the same
and took the plea that DSP Kaka Singh himself was driving the gypsy and he
did not know how to drive properly and he at once turned the gypsy it
towards link to the main road as a result of which the gypsy turned down and
driver Mangal Dass died and remaining persons sitting in the gypsy
sustained injuries. Case is falsely implicated upon him. In defence, the
accused examined Surjit Singh as DW 1 and placed on record Ex.DA and
then closed the defence evidence.
8. PW2 deposed on oath that on 08.08.2000, he was posted as
DSP City and he was in his Government gypsy bearing No.PB-08B-2996
which was driven by Constable Mangal Ram and his gunman Constable
Kuldeep Singh and Constable Pardeep Singh were also with them. At about
3 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041964
1.30 p.m., he alongwith abovesaid persons were going to his residence for
taking meal. One NFL employee-Vinod Kumar Mittal also sat in his gypsy
from NFL Gate No.1. A truck No.RJ-13G-5212 which came from Goniana
side was driven by driver rashly and negligently due to which the truck hit
the gypsy at the rear side. All the persons sitting in the gypsy received
injuries and he got injuries on his shoulder. The truck was driven by Amarjit
Singh. Sub Inspector Darshan Singh came to the spot and took all of them
to the hospital.
9. PW 10 Constable Kuldeep Singh corroborated the statement of
PW-2 by deposing to the similar effect.
10. PW 1 Dr. Pawan Kumar Bansal, SMO, Civil Hospital, Bathinda
placed on record his report Ex.PA and in regard to MLR of DSP Kaka Singh
and pictorial diagram Ex.PA/1. He also proved on record his report Ex.PC/1
whereby he declared injury No.5 i.e. injury on right shoulder to be grievous
in nature and further opined that remaining injuries were simple in nature.
11. PW14 Dr. O.P. Aggarwal conducted the post mortem of the
dead body of Mangal Ram who was the driver of the DSP Kaka Singh and
proved on record his report Ex.PW13A. He opined that the cause of death
was shock and haemorrhage resulting from the injuries on the person of
Mangal Ram and all the injuries could be the result of the accident.
12. PW3 Gulab Singh duly proved on the record the mechanical
test report of the gypsy and placed on record his report as Ex.PD.
13. PW9 Manjit Singh placed on record the posting order of
Constable Kuldeep Singh vide Ex.PW9/A and contended that a perusal of
Ex.PW9/A reveals that Constable Kuldeep Singh was posted as gunman
with DSP Kaka Singh.
4 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041964
14. With regard to the first contention of the counsel for the
petitioner that the prosecution witness PW5 turned hostile, it is held that
during examination-in-chief PW5 stated that he was riding in the accidental
gypsy and his presence at the spot was proved beyond doubt as he sustained
injuries alongwith other persons. During cross examination, he denied the
fact that his statement was recorded by the police. He also denied the fact
that DSP Kaka Singh was driving the gypsy. The investigating officer has
proved the fact that he recorded the statement Ex.PY of Vinod Kumar Mittal
and as per version made by him and the investigating officer has not been
cross examined on this point. Thus, there exists no reason to disbelieve the
testimony of the investigating officer. The mere fact that the PW5 Vinod
Kumar Mittal has not supported the case is not sufficient to discard the
material evidence of the other injured witnesses.
15. With regard to the second contention that the testimony of
defence witnesses was totally ignored in which he has alleged that the
deceased before his death stated before him that DSP Kaka Singh was
driving the gypsy. It is held that PW14 Dr. O.P. Aggarwal who had
conducted the postmortem of Mangal Ram on 09.08.2000 stated that there
was diffused swelling on the back of the head of the deceased. The clotted
blood was present in the skull cavity and his brain was injured. The person
who has sustained so many injuries which ultimately resulted into death in
less than 24 hours cannot narrate the entire occurrence. There exists no
reason to presume that the injured was fit to make the statement. As per the
documents tendered into evidence, the dead body and police papers were
brought by Sub Inspector Darshan Singh and the dead body was identified
by Joginder Singh and Jagat Ram. There is no document on the record
5 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041964
which shows the presence of DW1 alongwith Mangal Ram deceased.
Hence, the testimony of DW1 cannot be relied upon.
16. With regard to the next contention that the test identification
parade was done for the first time in the Court, it is held that the evidence
obtained from the test identification parade is admissible under Section 9 of
the Indian Evidence Act but it can only be used to corroborate the
substantive evidence presented by the witness in Court regarding the
identification of the accused. In other words, the primary value of the test
identification parade lies in supporting and strengthening the witness
testimony during trial. The earlier identification made by the witness during
test identification parade is not considered to have independent value. It is
the testimony and identification made by the witness in the Court that hold
substantive value.
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of in Malkhan Singh
Vs. State of M.P., (2003) 5 SCC 746 it has been held thus:
"7. The identification parades belong to the stage of
investigation, and there is no provision in the Code of Criminal
Procedure which obliges the investigating agency to hold, or
confers a right upon the accused to claim a test identification
parade. They do not constitute substantive evidence and these
parades are essentially governed by section 162 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. Failure to hold a test identification parade
would not make inadmissible the evidence of identification in
court. The weight to be attached to such identification should be
a matter for the courts of fact. ..."
And again:
6 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041964
"16. It is well settled that the substantive evidence is the
evidence of identification in court and the test identification
parade provides corroboration to the identification of the
witness in court, if required. However, what weight must be
attached to the evidence of identification in court, which is not
preceded by a test identification parade, is a matter for the
courts of fact to examine. ..."
18. With regard to the fourth point of determination that there are
material discrepancies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, it is held
by The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Yogesh Singh v. Mahabeer Singh,
2017(11) SCC 195 held that minor discrepancies in the testimony of witness
is not to be given undue emphasis and the evidence is to be considered from
the point of view of trustworthiness. The relevant extract of the said order is
reproduced as under:-
"29. It is well settled in law that the minor discrepancies
are not to be given undue emphasis and the evidence is to
be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness.
The test is whether the same inspires confidence in the
mind of the Court. If the evidence is incredible and
cannot be accepted by the test of prudence, then it may
create a dent in the prosecution version. If an omission
or discrepancy goes to the root of the matter and ushers
in incongruities, the defence can take advantage of such
inconsistencies. It needs no special emphasis to state that
every omission cannot take place of a material omission
and, therefore, minor contradictions, inconsistencies or
insignificant embellishments do not affect the core of the
prosecution case and should not be taken to be a ground
to reject the prosecution evidence. The omission should
create a serious doubt about the truthfulness or
creditworthiness of a witness. It is only the serious
7 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041964
contradictions and omissions which materially affect the
case of the prosecution but not every contradiction or
omission."
19. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering
the entire material on record it is clear that there is no infirmity and illegality
in the orders passed by the Courts below.
20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Bakshi
2015 (5) SCC 182 had reduced the sentence of 02 years for commission of
offence under Section 304A IPC to the period already undergone. The
Coordinate Bench in CRR-4830-2016 decided on 08.03.2017 titled as
Balwinder Singh @ Bindhi Vs. State of Punjab, has reduced the sentence
to 04 months in case of conviction under Sections 279/304A IPC where
rigorous imprisonment was awarded for 02 years.
21. In so far, the conviction of the present petitioner under Sections
279, 304A and 338 IPC is concerned, this Court is of the view that both the
Courts below have considered the entire evidence and material on record in
detail and have rightly come to the conclusion that it is the petitioner who is
involved in the accident and thus, the conviction of the petitioner under
Sections 279, 304A and 338 IPC is upheld.
22. With regard to the sentence which has been awarded to the
petitioner, this Court is of the view that the accident in the present case is of
the year 2000 and the petitioner has never misused the concession of
bail/suspension of sentence. The petitioner is 49 years (approx.) of age and
as per the custody certificate, he has undergone one month of actual custody
out of the entire sentence awarded to him.
8 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041964
23. Thus, in view of the above facts and circumstances, sentence
awarded to the petitioner is ordered to be reduced to the period already
undergone subject to the fact that an amount of Rs.10,000/- will be deposited
by the petitioner before the learned trial Court within a period of 02 months
from the date of this judgment and in default he will be liable to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
24. With the abovesaid observations, the petition is partly allowed.
25. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
26. Records of the Court below be sent back.
(KIRTI SINGH)
JUDGE
22.03.2024
Ramandeep Singh
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes / No
Whether Reportable Yes/ No
9 of 9
