Bikkar Singh v. State Of Punjab
(201)
!" #$%$!&'(( Bikker Singh ... .Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
' )*
( +++
Present:
Mr. M.S. Sachdev, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Prabhdeep Singh Dhaliwal, AAG, Punjab.
**** ++,( The present revision petition has been filed impugning the judgment dated 01.05.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, whereby the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.09.2006 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nakodar, has been dismissed.
2.
The FIR in the present case came to be registered on 27.07.2003. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence was passed on 16.09.2006 by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nakodar. The Appeal filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence was
dismissed on 01.05.2008. The instant revision petition was filed on 08.07.2008 and has come up for final hearing now i.e. after a period of 21 years from the date of registration of the FIR. 3.
The Prosecution version is that on 17.07.2003 Н. С. Harjit Singh was posted at police Post City Nakodar where Sukhdev Mitter Chopra got recorded his statement Ex, PA. He stated that he was a retired employee of the Municipal Council. He had six daughters and all were married. As a routine, he had gone on a morning walk along with his wife Pushpa Chopra. His wife was ahead of him and at about 4.30 a.m., when they reached near the Purani Kanda Octroi. Shanker Road, Nakodar, one truck bearing No. PB. 2J?A?9395 was seen coming at a high speed without blowing any horn. It struck his wife from behind due to which she received grievous injuries and died at the spot. The truck driver ran away from the spot after leaving the truck and he could identify him if produced before him. In the meantime, his son in law Manoj Kumar also came at the spot.
He stated that this accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver. On the basis of this Statement the FIR was registered. The truck was taken into possession by the police. The rough site plan of the place of accident was prepared. Post?mortem of the dead body of Pushpa Chopra was got conducted. The accused was arrested. After completion of investigation, challan against the accused was presented in the Court of the Illaga Magistrate.
4.
On finding a case to be made out against the accused, charge under Sections 279 and 304?A IPC was framed. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5.
To prove its case, the prosecution examined Sukhdev Mitter Chopra (PW?1) who deposed that on 17.07.2003 as a routine, he had gone on a morning walk along with his wife Pushpa Chopra. His wife was ahead of him and at about 4.30 a.m., when they reached near Purani Kanda Octroi. Shanker Road, Nakodar, one truck bearing No. PB?2J?A?9395 was seen coming at a high speed without blowing any horn and hit his wife from behind due to which she received grievous injuries and died at the spot. He identified the accused present in the court. He proved his statement Ex. PA, which was read over and explained to him and after admitting the same as correct he signed the same. He also proved memo Ex. PB, vide which the truck was taken into possession of the police. Dr. Varinder Pal Jagat (PW2) deposed that on 17.7.2003, he conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Pushpa Chopra deceased and found the following injuries: ?
!
"
!
# #
!
$ "
%
& "
!
'
"$
"
(
He deposed that all the injuries were ante?mortem in nature & cause of death in his opinion was neurogenic & hemorrhagic shock due to the injuries which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He proved carbon copy of the post Mortem Report Ex. PW/A. Manoj Kumar (PW3) deposed that on 17.07.2003 when he was going to his shop at village Shankar, he saw his father?in?law near old Octroi Post Shanker Road where the dead body of his mother?in?law Pushpa Chopra was lying. He deposed that his father?in?law told him that the truck driver had caused the accident & there after he left the spot for
informing the police. He deposed that he identified the dead body and inquest report Ex. PW3/A was also signed by him. He also proved recovery memo Ex. PB vide which the truck was taken into possession by the police. Amit Kumar (PW4) proved photographs and negatives Ex.P1 to Ex. P4 which were taken into possession of the police vide recovery memo Ex. PW4/A signed by him.
ASI Harjit Singh (PW5) the investigation Officer of the case, deposed that on 17.07.2003 he recorded the statement of Sukhdev Mitter Chopra Ex. PA and after making his endorsement Ex. PW5/A it was sent to the police station on the basis of which formal F.I.R. Ex.PW5/B was recorded. He also prepared the inquest report Ex. PW3/A. He deposed that after the post?mortem of the dead body, parcel containing the clothes of the dead body were taken into possession of the police vide recovery memo Ex. PW5/C. He proved recovery memo Ex. PB vide which the truck was taken into possession of the police and recovery memo Ex. PW5/D vide which driving licence and registration certificate of the truck were taken into possession. He also proved the rough site plan of the place of accident Ex.PW5/E and also identified the signatures of SHO Mandeep Singh on the challan.
Constable Des Raj (PW6) proved the mechanical test report of the truck Ex.PW6/A which bore his signatures. Thereafter, the A.P.P. closed the prosecution evidence after tendering into evidence copy of the driving licence ex. PX and registration certificate of the truck EX.PY.
6.
The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. in which all the incriminating evidence was put to him. He denied the same and pleaded innocence.
7.
Based on the evidence led, the accused/petitioner came to be convicted and sentenced by the court of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nakodar vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.09.2006 as under:?
"" &# -&. / + # $!& + & &# 0+ $&
0+ $& . "
-1 !"
34 & !""$& 304?A IPC RI for 02 years Rs.4,000/?
SI for 01 month RI for 06 months Rs.1,000/?
SI for 01 month 8.
The accused/petitioner preferred an appeal which came to be dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar vide judgment dated 01.05.2008.
9.
The aforementioned judgments are under challenge in the present petition.
10.
During the pendency of the instant revision petition, the sentence of the accused/petitioner was suspended vide order dated 25.09.2008.
11.
The learned counsel for the accused?petitioner contends that the impugned judgments are based on conjectures and surmises. He contends that the identification of the accused?petitioner has not been
established as per law and the first time identification in the Court has little evidentiary value. There is no evidence of any rash and negligent driving other than the statement of complainant?Sukhdev Mitter Chopra and there is no other independent witness of the occurrence. Therefore, the impugned judgments are liable to be set aside. In addition, he contends that in case this Court was to come to a finding that the prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable doubt, then keeping in view the fact that the occurrence was of the year 2003 and the case had come up for final hearing now after a gap of 21 years, the accused?petitioner may be released on probation subject to payment of compensation. 12.
The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has referred to the custody certificate dated 12.12.2024 of the accused? petitioner, which is already on record. As per the said custody certificate, the accused?petitioner has undergone 06 months and 07 days out of his substantive sentence. While referring to the record, he contends that the prosecution witnesses had deposed consistently as to the manner in which the occurrence had taken place. There were no discrepancies in their statements as has been sought to be argued. Therefore, the present petition was liable to be dismissed.
13.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record.
14.
As regards the identification of the accused is concerned, no doubt his name is not mentioned in the statement of the complainant Ex.PA,
but he has specifically stated that he could identify the driver of the vehicle if produced before him and when he appeared in the witness box as PW1 he again specifically deposed that the accused present in the Court was driving the truck and after leaving the truck, he ran away. When the driver of the offending vehicle fled away from the spot after the accident, but is identified in Court, mere absence of an identification parade would not be fatal to the prosecution case.
15.
In the context of an identification parade, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
held as under:?
)# * +
,-,-$ * +
+ +
.
/
*
+ 0
!
*
!
0 !
*
*
* +
+
0 +
1
- 1 ! ! "
# $ %&
'()*+, ! ! !, + 2'#3 )!, ! 4
0 ! 5 ) . % +
+
0 + !
& 0 0
* ,
0
* + 1 +
+
'
* / !, !
0
* ,
6
+
0
.
+
0 0
* ,
*
+
0 + 1
7
- $! -. *&/ '
/% 1
&*, 2
$ 3 244' &*/ ' 034$
'3 /%*
& , "
* ,
0 * ,
0
0 +
## * +
6
+
9
+ + + +
+
[Emphasis supplied] 16.
Sukhdev Mitter Chopra, the complainant of the case, when appeared in the witness box as PW1 proved the prosecution case that at the time of the accident, the accused was driving the offending vehicle and this accident took place due to his rash and negligent driving. No enmity has been suggested or proved by the accused for his false implication. The very fact that the accused struck the deceased from behind itself shows that he was driving the truck rashly and negligently. In this context, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in
held as under:?
)
:; <
;
= *
-
!
* +
0 ! +
+ : < /
0
3 4
*
+
+
0
# 0
/ 0
>
+
% +
0
/
0 (
/ *, !
-
% "$ (
0
:
< : <
:!
<
/
0
34
:! <
+
+
0
*
0
/
+
+ 1 +
<
?7
@
71 0< :(A
! B C ( + 2""<36
A + D 17.
In view of the above discussion, I find no infirmity in the judgments of the Trial Court as well as of the lower Appellate Court. Resultantly, the present revision petition stands dismissed. 18.
As regards the imposition of sentence, it may be pointed out that this Court in ! 2 $
.6 7&+8 54 4** held as under:?
"
0 5
!
/
1
= 0 % !
/ E
% #$E(*,!
-
F! % ! !
/ +
E
*
6*7
'
0
'
$
7
0
0 /
+ ! 2
+
G*
! E
( ! 3$4 :
5
3 4
( !
*
E
%
E
# 0
F
H
F &
E
&
$ 0
E
+
!
, + "
19.
Admittedly, the occurrence pertains to the year 2003 and as many as 21 years have passed ever since then. A perusal of the custody certificate of the accused?petitioner would show that he does not have any criminal antecedents and is a first time offender. Therefore, subject to the payment of the fine as imposed and payment of Rs.1,00,000 Lac as compensation to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased, the sentence of the accused/petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 06 months and 07 days.
20.
The present revision petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
21.
Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. ++
5/- /3, sukhpreet Whether speaking/reasoned:? Yes/No Whether reportable:?
Yes/No