Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manjit Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 12 November, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147626
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
204
CWP-3534-2016 (O&M)
Date of decision: 12.11.2024
Manjit Singh ...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
Present :- Mr. Onkar Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Aditya Sharda, DAG Punjab.
Ms. Malvika Singh, Advocate for respondent No.3
(Legal Aid Counsel).
*****
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)
1. Challenging the judgment dated 24.11.2015 passed by the
Juvenile Justice Board whereby respondent No.3 has been acquitted of the
charges framed against him by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice
Board, Hoshiarpur on the ground that the identity of respondent No.3, as an
accused could not be established beyond the reasonable doubt, the instant
writ petition has been filed.
2. Briefly summarized, the facts of the case are that the petitioner-
Manjit Singh son of late Sh. Surinder Singh made a complaint to the Police
and informing that on 26.03.2014, he was accompanying one Balbir Singh
on a tractor bearing registration No.PB-10-AL-7410 while his father was
going on his scooter, make Bajaj Chetak, bearing registration No.PB-24A-
0253, towards their village. His father was ahead on his scooter and was
being followed by the petitioner-complainant. When they were 1 Km. away
1 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147626
204 CWP-3534-2016 (O&M)
from the village Dhagam, a motorcycle make Splendor bearing registration
No.PB-07-AJ-4307 being driven in a rash and negligent manner, stuck
against the scooter of his father near the fields of one Sh. Gurnam Singh,
resulting in injuries to his father. He reached at the spot and asked the name
of the person driving the offending motorcycle, who disclosed his name as
Lovepreet Singh son of Paramjit Singh while the pillion rider disclosed his
name as Jasbir Lal (respondent No.3 herein) son of Kashminder Singh.
When the petitioner-complainant was attending to his injured father, both the
said persons escaped from the spot leaving behind the motorcycle. Father of
the petitioner however succumbed to the injuries. The scooter was also
badly damaged. An FIR No.26 dated 27.03.2014 regarding accident was
also registered under Sections 304-A, 279 and 427 of IPC at Police Station
Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur.
3. During the course of investigation, the Police took the scooter
alongwith the offending motorcycle in its possession. The postmortem of
the petitioner's father was also got conducted as per which the cause of
death was determined as head injuries sustained in the accident and that the
said injuries were held to be ante mortem in nature.
4. On completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet under
Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed whereupon proceedings were initiated before
the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Hoshiarpur. The
respondent being a juvenile faced the proceedings for offences punishable
under Sections 304-A, 279 and 427 of IPC.
5. Parties led their respective evidence and on consideration
2 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147626
204 CWP-3534-2016 (O&M)
thereof, the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Hoshiarpur came to
a conclusion that the identification of the accused was never established and
that the identification was undertaken for the first time in Court and carries
no value in the eyes of law. It was also recorded that earlier, as per the
statement of the petitioner-complainant-who claims to be an eye-witness to
the incident, the motorcycle was being driven by co-accused Lovepreet
Singh but the name has subsequently been changed in the supplementary
statement recorded on 04.04.2014 introducing the private respondent as the
one driving the offending motorcycle. It was also noticed that there was no
disclosure about the means whereby the petitioner verified as to who was
driving the vehicle and that the only eye-witness i.e. the petitioner herein
had also stated that the juvenile-in-conflict with law was not known to him
earlier. It was also established that the petitioner reached the place of
accident after some time since he was at a distance of about 50 feet/30-40
karams at the time of the incident and had not seen as to who was driving
the motorcycle in question. It was also noticed notwithstanding the same,
the petitioner specifically got recorded the name of the driver of the
offending vehicle as Lovepreet Singh, in his first version recorded in the FIR
(Ex. PB/1) and that too after making an enquiry from them. Hence, a finding
was recorded that prosecution failed to prove the case against the private
respondent/Juvenile-in-conflict with law, beyond reasonable doubt and
consequently acquitted him of the charges framed against him.
6. Aggrieved, thereof the present writ petition has been filed.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that
3 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147626
204 CWP-3534-2016 (O&M)
the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Hoshiarpur failed to
appreciate the evidence that had been brought on record. He contends that
the petitioner subsequently named the private-respondent/Jasbir Lal son of
Kashminder Singh to be driving the offending motorcycle in his
supplementary statement. Notwithstanding the aforesaid statement by the
petitioner as an eye-witness, an undue benefit has been extended to the
private respondent-accused. It is thus contended that the judgment suffers
from non-appreciation of evidence and is liable to be set aside.
8. Since there was no representation on behalf of respondent No.3
despite service, since 15.07.2022 and awaiting appearance, Dr. Malvika
Singh was appointed as the Legal Aid Counsel vide order dated 21.08.2024.
9. The Legal Aid Counsel appointed on behalf of respondent No.3
has vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for
the petitioner-complainant and submits that in his first version, the petitioner
had specifically stated that he had stopped the person who was driving the
offending vehicle and that the one driving the motorcycle disclosed his name
as Lovepreet Singh son of Sh. Paramjit Singh while the pillion rider had
disclosed his name as Jasbir Lal son of Sh. Kashminder Lal. She contends
that the petitioner thereafter entered into a settlement/agreement with
Lovepreet Singh and got a supplementary statement recorded on 04.04.2024
i.e. after 07 days of the incident wherein he introduced the name of the
petitioner as the accused driving the offending motorcycle. The said
statement is based upon an alleged verification and satisfaction regarding the
accident and about driver of the vehicle, however, the source of such
4 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147626
204 CWP-3534-2016 (O&M)
verification has neither been disclosed nor any evidence has been led by him
to establish the claim. She also refers to the cross-examination of the
petitioner wherein he has specifically admitted that he was at a distance of
50 feet/30-40 karams from his father and no other person was present but
they gathered after some time i.e. within 10-15 minutes of the occurrence.
He pleaded ignorance about the persons who had assembled at the spot. It is
also acknowledged by him that the motor-cycle riders were there at the time
when other persons had assembled and that he was also in possession of his
mobile at that time. None of the details of the persons, who assembled at the
spot of the accident, was given by the petitioner-complainant. Further, it was
also acknowledged by him that he visited the Police State on 27.03.2014 i.e.
the next day. He later said that he might have gone to the Police Station on
28.03.2014 and stated that he was not sure whether he visited the Police
Station on 29.03.2024 or not. He also could not give the details as to when
he was called for getting his statement recorded. It was further accepted by
him that the identification of the accused was not done earlier and done first
time in Court.
10. She further submits that all the factors were noticed by the
Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Hoshiarpur while recording a
finding in favour of the private respondent-accused. The operative part of
the judgment dated 24.11.2015 reads thus:
"11. The fact to be determined is that whether the
prosecution was able to prove the identity of the juvenile-in-
conflict-with-law with the occurrence in question. There is
5 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147626
204 CWP-3534-2016 (O&M)
statement of complainant Manjit Singh, who in relation is son
of deceased Surinder Pal Singh. He while deposing in the
Court, in his examination-in-chief, has reiterated the entire
prosecution version. He proved on record his statement Ex.
PA and supplementary statement as Ex.PB which he had got
recorded with the police, but his cross-examination is relevant
to be discussed here. In his cross-examination, he stated that
at the time of alleged accident, he was at a distance of 50 Feet
30/40 Karams from his father on the fateful day and at that
time no other person was present. He further stated that the
people gathered there within 10/15 minutes. These persons
were doing work in the nearby fields. He further deposed that
the motorcycle riders were there. He further deposed that he
cannot tell the exact time when the police came at the spot. He
visited the police station on 27.03.2014 in the morning. He
Further stated that he might have gone to the police station on
28.03.2014 and lastly went to the police station for recording
the statement when he was called, but, he cannot tell the exact
date. He has specifically stated that no identification parade
was done by the police from him.
12. The cross-examination of the Investigating
Officer Examiner PW 2 is also very relevant wherein he has
stated that during his investigation Lovepreet Singh son of
Paramjit Singh was found guilty for committing the accident
6 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147626
204 CWP-3534-2016 (O&M)
in question.
13. Moreover, the name of the juvenile has not been
mentioned in the FIR. The identification parade for
establishing the identity of the juvenile was not conducted in
the present case. The so-called eye witness namely PW1
Manjit Singh has for the first time identified the juvenile in
the Court and such identification has no value in the eyes of
the law. Thus, in my opinion the basic requirement that at the
time of alleged accident, the motorcycle in question was being
driven by the juvenile has not been established by the
prosecution. The Reliance can be placed on the judgment
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case titled as
Kanan and Ors. Versus State of Kerla, AIR 1979 (S.C.) 1127,
in which it has been held that where a witness identifies an
accused who is not known to him in the Court for the first
time, his evidence is absolutely valueless unless there has
been a previous identification parade to test his powers of
observations. The idea of holding the test identification
parade under Section 9 is to test the veracity of the witness on
the question of capability to identify an unknown person
whom the witness may have seen only once. If, no test
identification parade is held, then, it will be wholly unsafe to
rely on his bare testimony regarding the identification of an
Juvenile-in-conflict-with-law for the first time in the Court.
7 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147626
204 CWP-3534-2016 (O&M)
14. Thus, from the above authority, it becomes very
much clear that the identification for the first time in the
Court has no value. In the present case the only alleged eye
witness/complainant PW1 Manjit Singh has stated that the
juvenile-in-conflict-with-law was not known to him earlier
and from his statement it is also crystal clear that he had
reached at the place of accident after some time of the
accident and they had not seen who was driving the
motorcycle in question i.e. why the complainant got recorded
the name of driver of the offending vehicle as Lovepreet
Singh firstly at the time of recording his statement with the
police. So, the prosecution has failed to prove one of the vital
ingredients of the offence and prosecution has failed to
establish the identity of the juvenile-in-conflict-with-law.
15. The other evidence which is led by the
prosecution is found to be just supporting evidence and that
supporting evidence is only helpful to the prosecution to prove
the charge when the prosecution is able to establish the
identity of the juvenile-in-conflict-with-law. When the
prosecution case is lacking in that aspect, then the
prosecution has failed to prove the case against the juvenile-
in-conflict-with-law beyond reasonable doubt.
16. So, in these circumstances Juvenile-in-conflict-
with- Law Jasbir Lal stands acquitted of the charges framed
8 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147626
204 CWP-3534-2016 (O&M)
against him. Case property if any be disposed of as per rules,
after the decision of appeal or revision if any. File be
consigned to the Judicial Record-room, Hoshiarpur, after its
completion."
11. It is thus argued that the findings recorded by the Principal
Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Hoshiarpur cannot be said to be
erroneous or illegal or based upon non-appreciation of evidence. She further
submits that once the view taken by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile
Justice Board, Hoshiarpur is of a probable view, on the basis of evidence
adduced before the Court, such a finding of acquittal would not ordinarily be
converted to the prejudice of the private respondent merely because some
other view is also probable.
12. No other argument has been raised by the learned counsel for
the respective parties.
13. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and
have gone through the documents appended with the present writ petition.
14. It is evident from the above that the accident in question took
place on 26.03.2014 at around 6.50 p.m. and information sent to the Police
Station on 27.03.2014. In the first version, the petitioner-complainant
specifically named the person driving the offending vehicle as Lovepreet son
of Paramjit Singh caste Adharmi resident of village Dagam and the person
sitting on the pillion disclosed his name as Jasbir Lal son of Kashminder
Singh caste Adharmi resident of Dagam. Thereafter, there has been a shift
from the allegations leveled by the petitioner and a supplementary statement
9 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147626
204 CWP-3534-2016 (O&M)
was got recorded on 04.04.2014 and the name of the private respondent-
Jasbir Lal, instead of Lovepreet Singh was substituted. The petitioner
simply stated that he had verified the details regarding the accident and was
satisfied that Jasbir Lal son of Kashminder Singh was actually driving the
vehicle and Lovepreet Singh son of Paramjit Singh was sitting on the back
side. No source of such verification or authentication has been disclosed by
the petitioner as to how and under what circumstances did he arrive at the
said conclusion. Further, as per the plea of the petitioner-complainant, the
people from the nearby fields had gathered in a short time span of 10-15
minutes and the accused-Jasbir Lal as well as Lovepreet Singh were also
present at that time when all those people had gathered. It seems improbable
that in the presence of such a large number of people at the spot, how the
suspect could have escaped. It is also highly improbable that none of the
persons working in the adjoining fields would be knowing the suspects or
even the petitioner more so when the that accused as well as the petitioner
belong to the neighboring villages. None of the said persons joined in the
investigation or supported the version of the petitioner.
15. It is also evident that the petitioner disputed the identity of the
person, who was originally reported by him to be driving the vehicle, and
has thereafter been substituted with respondent No.3 apparently on the basis
of some Panchayatnama/settlement. The said Panchayatnama is signed by
Jaswinder Singh s/o Ram Chand, Satpal s/o Garib Dass, Joginder Pal, Raj
Pal s/o Shankar Dass, Prakash, Paramjit Ram, Kashminder Lal (father of
Lovepreet Singh), Surinder Singh and Didar Singh, but none of the said
10 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147626
204 CWP-3534-2016 (O&M)
persons stepped into the witness box in support of the case of the
prosecution. Kashminder Singh- one of the signatory did appear as a
defence witness-RW1 and stated that he had seen the attested copy of the
Panchayatnama and while he identified his signatures on the same but stated
that the contents of the same were not informed to him. He denied
involvement of his son-Jasbir Lal in the incident/accident or that he was
driving the vehicle. The burden thus lay on the prosecution to establish its
case including the genuineness of the Panchayatnama/settlement pertaining
to the identification of the person actually driving the offending vehicle.
The case of the prosecution was based solely on the supplementary
statement of the petitioner (herein). The surrounding circumstances leading
to the substitution of name of the private respondent as an accused against
the initially named suspect-accused Lovepreet Singh, has not been explained
to the satisfaction of judicial conscience or to be held as a satisfactory
discharge of burden of proof.
16. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the judgment passed
by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Hoshiarpur cannot be
said to be perverse or based upon mis-appreciation/misreading of the
evidence adduced before the Court. The High Court, while sitting in review
against the judgment(s) passed by the trial Court does not substitute its
opinion for that of the trial Court unless such an opinion suffers from
illegality, impropriety or gross mis-appreciation of the evidence. Since no
such defect or error has been pointed out, I find that the present petition
lacks merit. The same is accordingly dismissed.
11 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147626
204 CWP-3534-2016 (O&M)
17. The judgment dated 24.11.2015 passed by the Principal
Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Hoshiarpur is affirmed.
(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
12.11.2024 JUDGE
Mangal Singh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
12 of 12
