Punjab-Haryana High Court
Heera Lal vs State Of Punjab on 21 January, 2025
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008549
CRR-1625-2008(O&M) #1#
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CRR-1625-2008(O&M)
Date of Decision:-21.01.2025
Heera Lal.
......Petitioner.
Vs.
State of Punjab.
......Respondent.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present:- Mr. B.S. Jaswal, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, AAG Punjab.
***
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.(ORAL)
The present revision petition has been filed impugning the
judgment dated 28.07.2008 passed by Sessions Judge, Rupnagar whereby
the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 26.07.2007 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Anandpur
Sahib has been dismissed.
2. The FIR in the present case came to be registered on
27.05.2001. The judgment of conviction was passed on 26.07.2007 by the
Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Anandpur Sahib. The Appeal filed
against the order of conviction was dismissed on 28.07.2008 by the Sessions
Judge, Rupnagar. The instant revision petition was filed on 27.08.2008 and
has come up for final hearing now i.e. after a period of 23 years from the
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008549
CRR-1625-2008(O&M) #2#
date of registration of the FIR.
3. The story of the prosecution in brief is that on 26.5.01 ASI Ram
Sarup alongwith other police officials was on VVIP duty near the round
about of Gurdwara Patalpuri when a passerby informed the police party
regarding the occurrence of an accident near village Baruwal, GT road near
Lambran Dhaba and the injured had been taken to CH Anandpur Sahib. ASI
Ram Sarup along with other police officials reached CH Anandpur Sahib
and after obtaining opinion of the doctor, recorded the statement of the
injured/complainant Dilbagh Singh to the effect that he along with Bhajan
Singh son of Telu Ram were going on a scooter bearing no. PB-16-0723
from Kiratpur Sahib towards their village and when they reached near
Lambran Dhaba, a Van no. PB-16-0755 was going ahead of the scooter. In
the mean time truck no. PB-11-5312 came from the opposite direction being
driven in a rash and negligent manner and the said truck by coming on the
wrong side struck against the van which was going ahead of their scooter
and as a result the said van hit against the scooter and the complainant fell
towards the left hand side, whereas Bhajan Singh fell towards right hand
side. Bhajan Singh died at the spot. The driver of the van, Jasbir Singh also
died at the spot and the persons sitting in the van suffered injuries. The
complainant also received injures and the driver of the truck ran away after
leaving the truck at the spot. On the statement of Dilbagh Singh the case was
registered against Heera Lal accused and he was later on arrested on 1.6.01.
The place of accident was got photographed, post mortem on the dead
bodies of Bhajan Singh and Jasbir Singh was got conducted, site plan of the
place of occurrence was prepared, the vehicles involved in the accident were
taken into police possession and statements of witnesses were recorded. On
the investigation being completed, challan was presented in the court for the
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008549
CRR-1625-2008(O&M) #3#
trial of the accused.
3. Finding a prima facie case under sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A
and 427 IPC, the accused was charge sheeted to which he did not plead
guilty and claimed trial.
4. To prove its case, the prosecution examined Sudharshan Singh
PWI, Gurnam Singh PW2, Dilbagh Singh complainant PW3. Joginder Pal
PW4, ASI Ram Sarup PW5. Dr. Swaranjit Singh PW6, Arya Ram PW7, IIC
Keal Singh PW8, Jai Parkash PW9, Harbans Lal PW10. Rattan lal PW11,
Baldev Singh PW12.
5. On the evidence of the prosecution being closed. statement of
the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded in which he denied all
the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him and
pleaded his innocence and false implication.
6. Based on the evidence led, the accused came to be convicted
and sentenced by the court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Anandpur
Sahib vide judgment and order of sentence dated 26.07.2007 as under:-
Offence under Sentence RI/SI Fine RI/SI in default of
Section payment of fine
304-A IPC RI for 01 Year Rs.2000/- SI for 02 Months
279 IPC RI for 03 Months - -
337 IPC RI for 02 Months - -
338 IPC RI for 06 Months Rs.1000/- SI for 02 Months
427 IPC RI for 03 Months - -
6. The accused/petitioner preferred an appeal which came to be
dismissed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Rupnagar vide judgment dated
28.07.2008.
7. The aforementioned judgments are under challenge in the
present petition.
8. During the pendency of the instant revision petition, the
sentence of the accused/petitioner was suspended vide order dated
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008549
CRR-1625-2008(O&M) #4#
22.09.2008.
9. The counsel for the accused/petitioner contends that the
occurrence took place on 26.05.2001. Then accused/petitioner came to be
arrested on 01.06.2001. He had not been named in the FIR and no test
identification parade was conducted. In fact the truck was being driven by
one Sham Lal and not the accused/petitioner. The injured named in the FIR
was one Gurbux but it was in fact Dilbagh Singh who had been injured.
This creates a doubt in the case of the prosecution. Further there were
material discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. He
therefore, contends that the impugned judgments were liable to be set aside
and accused/petitioner was liable to be acquitted of the charges framed
against him.
10. The Counsel for the State on the other hand has filed a custody
certificate of the accused/petitioner dated 19.01.2025 and the same is taken
on record. He contends that the injured Harbans Lal PW-10 duly identified
the accused/petitioner. One Rattan Lal was examined as PW-11 and he
being the owner of the offending truck stated that the accused/petitioner who
had been employed as driver, had caused the accident and had been
produced by this witness before the police on 01.06.2001. Therefore, the
case against the accused/petitioner stands established beyond reasonable
doubt and it was a case where two persons had died in the accident.
Resultantly, the present petition was liable to be dismissed.
11. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and examined the
record.
12. Admittedly the accident in question has taken place on
26.5.2001 near Lambran Dhaba GT road near village Baruwal in which two
persons died at the spot and Dilbagh Singh complainant and another
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008549
CRR-1625-2008(O&M) #5#
passenger of the van sustained injures. The prosecution has examined
injured complainant Dilbagh Singh PW3, Harbans Lal another injured as
PW10 and owner of the truck Rattan Lal as PW-11. PW-10 & PW-11 have
identified the accused. Rattan Lal PW-11 the owner of the truck stated
categorically that the accused/petitioner was the driver of the offending
vehicle and the accused/petitioner was produced before the police by him on
01.06.2007. The accused/petitioner has failed to lead any evidence
regarding his false implication. Keeping in view the fact that the
accused/petitioner was produced before the police by the owner of the truck
i.e. Rattan lal PW-11 himself, no test identification parade is required. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravi Kapur Versus State of Rajasthan, 2012(4)
R.C.R. (Criminal) 245, has held as under:-
"32. In the present case, the accused had been seen by PW2 and
PW4. In addition, they had also stated that the passersby had
informed them that the accused was driving the bus and, in fact, he
was the owner of the bus. One fact of this statement is established
that the bus in question was given on superdari to the accused. It is
also stated by these persons that after they had seen the accused,
he had run away from the place where he parked the vehicle. These
witnesses also identified the accused in the Court. It is not the case
of the accused before us that he had been shown to the witnesses
prior to his being identified in the Court. The Court identification
itself is a good identification in the eyes of law. It is not always
necessary that it must be preceded by the test identification parade.
It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of a given
case. In one case, it may not even be necessary to hold the test
identification parade while in the other, it may be essential to do
so. Thus, no straightjacket formula can be stated in this regard. We
may refer to a judgment of this Court in the case of Shyamal Ghosh
v. State of West Bengal [2012 (6) SCALE 381] wherein this Court
has held that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short
"Criminal Procedure Code) does not oblige the investigating
agency to necessarily hold the test identification parade without
exception. The Court held as under :
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008549
CRR-1625-2008(O&M) #6#
"55. On behalf of accused Shyamal, it was also contended
that despite the identification parade being held, he was not
identified by the witnesses and also that the identification
parade had been held after undue delay and even when
details about the incident had already been telecasted on
the television. Thus, the Court should not rely upon the
identification of the accused persons as the persons
involved in the commission of the crime and they should be
given the benefit of doubt.
56. The whole idea of a Test Identification Parade is that
witnesses who claim to have seen the culprits at the time of
occurrence are to identify them from the midst of other
persons without any aid or any other source. The test is
done to check upon their veracity. In other words, the main
object of holding an identification parade, during the
investigation stage, is to test the memory of the witnesses
based upon first impression and also to enable the
prosecution to decide whether all or any of them could be
cited as eyewitnesses of the crime.
57. It is equally correct that the Criminal Procedure Code
does not oblige the investigating agency to necessarily hold
the Test Identification Parade. Failure to hold the test
identification parade while in police custody, does not by
itself render the evidence of identification in court
inadmissible or unacceptable. There have been numerous
cases where the accused is identified by the witnesses in the
court for the first time. One of the views taken is that
identification in court for the first time alone may not form
the basis of conviction, but this is not an absolute rule. The
purpose of the Test Identification Parade is to test and
strengthen the trustworthiness of that evidence. It is
accordingly considered a safe rule of prudence to generally
look for corroboration of the sworn testimony of the
witnesses in court as to the identity of the accused who are
strangers to them, in the form of earlier identification
proceedings. This rule of prudence is, however subjected to
exceptions. Reference can be made to Munshi Singh
Gautam v. State of M.P. 2005(1) RCR (Criminal) 361:
2005(1) Apex Criminal 202:[(2005)9 SCC 631], Sheo
Shankar Singh v State of Jharkhand and Anr., 2011(2) RCR
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008549
CRR-1625-2008(O&M) #7#
(Criminal) 634 : 2011(2) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.)
452: [(2011)3 SCC 654].
58. Identification Parade is a tool of investigation and is
used primarily to strengthen the case of the prosecution on
the one hand and to make doubly sure that persons named
accused in the case are actually the culprits. The
Identification Parade primarily belongs to the stage of
investigation by the police. The fact that a particular
witness has been able to identify the accused at an
identification parade is only a circumstance corroborative
of the identification in court. Thus, it is only a relevant
consideration which may be examined by the court in view
of other attendant circumstances and corroborative
evidence with reference to the facts of a given case."
13. The FIR in this case was promptly lodged on the statement of
Dilbagh Singh injured complainant (PW3) and Dr. Swaranjit Singh PW6 has
also mentioned the name of the injured as Dilbagh Singh in his MLR report
Ex. PW6-D. Therefore, there is no force in the contention raised on behalf of
learned counsel for the accused/petitioner that the name of the injured has
been wrongly mentioned in the ruqa Ex. PW-6/C. Therefore, the question of
the false implication of the petitioner does not arise.
14. The submission made by learned counsel for the
accused/petitioner that there are discrepancies in the statements of the
witnesses has also no force as the identity of the accused/petitioner stands
fully proved on record and it is fully established on record that the-
accused/petitioner was driving the truck in question at the time of accident in
a rash and negligent manner which resulted in the death of two persons and
injuries to two persons. This fact is established from the statement of PW-6
Dr. Swaranjit Singh as well.
15. In view of the aforementioned discussion, I find no merit in the
present petition the same stands dismissed.
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008549
CRR-1625-2008(O&M) #8#
16. Order dated 22.09.2008 suspending sentence of the
accused/petitioner stands vacated.
( JASJIT SINGH BEDI )
JUDGE
January 21, 2025
Vinay
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
8 of 8
