Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anokh Singh vs U.T. Chandigarh on 13 November, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
248
CRR-904--2019(O&M)
Date of decision: 13.11.2025
Anokh Singh ...Petitioner
VERSUS
U.T. Chandigarh and another ...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
Present :- Mr. S.S. Antal, Advocate, for
or the petitioner.
Mr. Viren Sibal, Addl. Public Prosecutor,
for U.T. Chandigarh.
*****
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ,
BHARDWAJ J. (Oral)
This revision petition has been preferred against the acquittal of respondent-accused/Supinder accused/Supinder Singh by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Class, Chandigarh vide judgment dated date 20.01.2017 in case FIR No.477 dated 20.09.2013 registered under Sections 279, 337, 304 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Sector-39, Sector 39, Chandigarh and the subsequent dismissal of Criminal Appeal No. 229 of 15.04.2017 by the Court of Sessions Judge, Chandigarh.
2. Briefly the version of the prosecution is that on 20.09.2013, on Briefly, receipt of a wireless message regarding an accident having taken place near the roundabout of Sector 55/56 and 39/40, the official officials arrived at the spot where they found an accidented accident vehicle and a bbumper of the offending vehicle (tractor) bearing Registration No. PB PB-11-F-1553. By then, the injured had already been shifted to General Hospital, Sector Sector-16, Chandigarh, wherefrom he was referred to PGIMER, MER, Chandigarh. Since the injured was declared unfit to make a statement, hence, the police officials came back to the spot where they met a person named Sameem, who got his statement SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.12.05 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 248 CRR CRR-904-2019 (O&M) recorded to the effect that at the time of the accident, the tractor trolley turned towards the petrol pump slip roadside whi while the motorcycle came from the opposite side. The driver of the alleged tractor trolley was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, thus resulting in an accident as a result whereof, the motorcyclist fell on the road and received serious injuries.
ies. The motorcyclist disclosed his name as Balj Baljit Singh and the registration number of the motorcycle was PB-23F PB 23F-8092.
3. As the witness stated that the tractor was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver-Supinder driver Supinder Singh (respondent No. No.2 herein), hence, the FIR in question was registered.
4. On conclusion of the investigation, the final report was filed. After compliance with the statutory formalities, evidence of the respective parties was recorded.
5. The parties advanced arguments and on consideration thereof, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Class, Chandigarh discharged the respondent No.2-accused accused in the said case after recording a finding that the place of accident was a slip road and that the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased, who had been negligent in driving the motorcycle since it was he who was coming oming from the opposite side of the tractor and was riding on thee wrong side. Besides, the witnesses also testified to the effect that they had only seen the driver of the tractor from behind wearing a parna. Accordingly, the benefit of the doubt was given to the accused accused, after recording a finding that there was no evidence of rash and negligent driving by the accused.
6. The operative part of the impugned judgment dated 20.01.2017, SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.12.05 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 248 CRR CRR-904-2019 (O&M) passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh Chandigarh, reads thus:-
"12. After hearing both the learned counsels at length and after careful perusal of the evidence led by the prosecution as well as by the accused, I am of the considered opinion that in the present case accused has been charge charge-sheeted under section 279 IPC and 304-A of IPC. As per Section 279 of IPC requires two essentials (a). Driving of a vehicle and (b). Such driving must be so rash or negligent as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person. AS per Section 304-A 304 off IPC following essential ingredients I. Death of a person, II. Death was caused by accused during any rash or negligence act, III. Act does not amount to culpable homicide. And to prove negligence under Criminal Law, the prosecution must prove: I. The existence existence of duty, II. A breach of the duty causing death, III. The breach of the duty must be characterized as gross negligence. To constitute an offence under Section 279 or Section 304-A 304 A IPC proof of criminal rashness or criminal negligence is essential. They They must be proved that rash or negligent act of the accused was the approximate cause of death. In the present case as far as the identity is concerned i.e. duly proved and it is also proved that it was the accused who was driving his tractor trolley on tthe spot, but now the next question that arise for consideration is whether the accused was negligent in his driving and he was driving rashly. When we see the evidence in totality it come out that accused was not driving rashly and negligently. PW-1 PW 1 Shamim who is an eye witness to the accident as per prosecution story has deposed in his cross cross-
examination that it is correct that this is a one way traffic where accident occurred. It is correct that tractor was coming from the right side when it turned from it its chowk. It is further correct that when this tractor turned to the slip road the motorcycle was coming from the front side. It is also correct that after turning SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.12.05 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 248 CRR CRR-904-2019 (O&M) to the slip road tractor was on its correct side and the motorcycle was coming from opposite side. This witness when came up for cross-examination cross examination before the court of learned Sh. S.K. Aggarwal, Motor Accident Ciaim Tribunal, Chandigarh has deposed that the motorcycle driver was coming from the side of petrol pump which is a wrong side for joining the main road. He deposed that he cannot tell the registration number of motorcycle and tractor and also cannot identify the accused. He also deposed that the tractor was coming on slow speed to come to join the slip road and the motorcycle driver was at tthe high speed. Investigating officer of this case also stated in his cross cross-
examination that motorcycle driver was coming from the side of petrol pump and the place of occurrence was a slip road. In view of the above said discussion, it can be said that the case against the accused is not proved beyond all reasonable doubts. As per cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence the case against the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubts. Here the word used is must and not may and this word rules out o probability. So, it can be said that prosecution in the present case has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that it was the accused who was driving rashly and negligently and caused the death of Baljit Singh Singh. Hence, accused is hereby entitled for for acquittal by extending benefit of doubt.
13. Hence, in view of above discussion, accused is hereby acquitted of the charges framed against him by giving him benefit of doubt. His bail bonds and surety bonds stand discharged, after awaiting the result of appeal/revision, if any or if no appeal/revision is preferred after the expiry of the time so prescribed for the filing of such appeal or revision. Accused is directed to furnish bonds under Section 437A Cr.P.C. in the sum of Rs.12,000/-
Rs.12,000/ with one surety iin the like amount. Case property, if any, be disposed of as per rules after the expiry of period of limitation for filing appeal/revision etc. File be SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.12.05 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5 248 CRR CRR-904-2019 (O&M) consigned to the record room.
(emphasis supplied)"
7. Aggrieved thereof, thereof, an appeal was preferred to the Court of Sessions, Chandigarh and after hearing the respective parties parties, the judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Class, Chandigarh Chandigarh, was affirmed by the Sessions Judge, Chandigarh vide judgment dated 04.02.2019. The operative part thereof hereof reads thus:-
"14.Apparently, there is no other eye witness of the accident in question except PW-1 PW 1 complainant Shamim, examined by the prosecution in the course of trial who stated that on 20.9.2013 at about 7.45 a.m., he was coming, on his vehicle and he reached near Petrol Pump, Sector 56 and turned towards slip reached road, at that time, one tractor-trolley tractor trolley also turned towards petrol pump slip road side and he saw one motorcyclist was also coming from the opposite side and the driver of tractor tractor-trolley while driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner, caused accident with the motorcyclist, due to which he fell on the road and sustained serious injuries. But, if his testimony is closely scrutinized, he had admitted that he saw the driver of the offending tractor-trolley tractor trolley in question from back side and therefore had no occasion to see as to who was driving the tractor trolley at the time of accident in question, nor for that tractor-trolley matter, he could have noticed the age, features and other identification marks of the driver of the offending vehicle. Moreover, in his police statement Ex P P-1 also, neither the name of accused nor his particulars i.e. age, appearance, features etc find reflected forfacilitating identification of the accused in the course of investigation. It may be that as per case of the prosecution and also as deposed by complainant PW PW-1 Shamim, the accused on 28.09.2013 was apprehended by the police at his identification, when personal sear searchmemo Ex P-3 was SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.12.05 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6 248 CRR CRR-904-2019 (O&M) prepared, which was attested by the complainant. Howe However, no test identification parade had been got conducted by the Investigating officer for the reasons best kno known. As has been noticed above, the complainant had no opportunity to observe the driver of the offending vehicle, the apprehension of the accused at the identification of the complainant was not possible, nor for that matter, the identification of the accused in the course of trial by the complainant could help the case of the prosecution. Except for the testimony of complainant PW PW-1 Shamim, there is no other witness examined by the prosecution for connecting the accused as driver of the offending tractor tractor-
trolley of the accident in question. Though, there is medical evidence of PW-13 PW 13 Dr. Sukhjeet Singh in the shape of postmortem examination report Ex Ex PW13/B, which shows that the deceased died due to injuries sustained in the roadside accident, but on that basis it cannot be said that the accident in question had been caused by the accused.
15. Though, on behalf of the prosecution, PW PW-6 SI Amrao Singh, Investigating Officer of the case in hand and PW Singh, PW-
3C.Tarlochan C.Tarlochan Singh, recovery witness, were examined in order to depose that after recording of the FIR on the statement of the complainant Shamim, they along with the complainant had witnessed the spot of accident and took in possession accidental motorcycle, bumper bearing registration number of tractor tractor-
trolley vide recovery memo Ex P-2, P 2, which was attested by the complainant and from the dickey of the motorcycle, registration certificate and driving license license in the name of Baljeet Singh was taken in possession vide recovery memo Ex PW3/A, which was also attested by the complainant, rough site plan of place of occurrence Ex PW6/3 was prepared by the Investigating Officer and the photographer PW-4 PW 4 C. Harjinder Singh clicked the photographs of accidental vehicles Ex PW4/1 to Ex PW4/8, the offending tractor-trolley tractor trolley without bumper was taken in SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.12.05 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7 248 CRR CRR-904-2019 (O&M) possession vide memo Ex P-4 P 4 in the presence of the complainant, the driving license of accused and R.C. of offending tractor-trolley tract trolley were also taken in possession vide memo Ex P-5, P 5, which was attested by the complainant. The mechanic PW-2 PW 2 HC Satya Parkash mechanically examined the accidental vehicles vide his report Ex PW2/A and verification of R.C. of both vehicles and driving driving license of accused as well as deceased was done vide request Ex PW6/6 to Ex PW6/9. Though, prosecution could be said to have been in a position to prove that the accident in question had taken place with tractor tractor-
trolley bearing registration no.PB-11 no.PB 11-F-1553 i.e. the identity of the vehicles and ownership of the vehicles involved in the accident in question, but on the basis of said evidence, it cannot be said with certainty as to who was driving the offending tractor trolley at the time of accident. tractor-trolley
16. Faced Faced with this eventuality, I would like to take up the argument advanced on behalf of the prosecution that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of tractor-trolley tractor trolley bearing registration no. PB PB-11-F-
1553. It may be that in the absence of establishing the identity of the driver of the offending vehicle, the deciding of this question is hardly of any significance. It may be that as per evidence of PW-1 PW 1 Shamim that accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of tractor-trolley, which hit the motorcyclist due to which he sustained injuries, who subsequently succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. But a close scrutiny of the facts and circumstances of the case and the oral evidence deposed by PW-1 PW 1 complainant Shamim, it is apparent that the tractor-trolley tractor trolley was being driven, on the correct side of the road and took a turn to the slip road and he was still negotiating the said turn from slip road, when the accident in question took place. Therefore, the tractor tractor-trolley cannot be said to be at fast speed. It is also apparent that the SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.12.05 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8 248 CRR CRR-904-2019 (O&M) motorcyclist was coming on the wrong side from the petrol pump situated on the slip road of Sector 56, Chandigarh as admitted by the complainant in his cross cross-examination. The place of accident and the manner of accident is indicative of the fact that driver of the tractor-trolley tractor trolley still being in the process of negotiating the turn on the slip road, could not have anticipated or observed the coming of the motorcycle from the wrong side ass the tractor-trolley tractor trolley had not yet completely negotiated the turn and was not at a straight road. Therefore, even by taking due care and caution, the driver of the tractor tractor-trolley could not have avoided the accident in question and the same apparently had taken aken place due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcyclist himself. The said fact simply raises suspicion regarding the involvement of the accused and the offending vehicle in question for the accident in question. Law on this point is well settled that that suspicion however strong can never be taken the place of proof regarding the actual involvement of the offending vehicle in question and the identity of the accused as driver of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident.
17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the prosecution failed to prove beyond doubt its case against accused and the accused has been rightly extended benefit of doubt. Resultantly, the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Magistrate is in perfect order order and is affirmed and the appeal being without merit is ordered to be dismissed."
8. Still aggrieved, the instant revision petition has been filed.
9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently contended that the Courts committed an error in extending the benefit of doubt to the respondent No.2-accused.
No.2 accused. The very fact that the accident in question had taken place and resulted in the death of deceased- SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.12.05 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 9 248 CRR CRR-904-2019 (O&M) Baljit Singh, it clearly establishes that there was negligence on the par part of the respondent No.2-accused.
No.2 accused. He further contends that the respondent respondent-
accused did not discharge his duty towards other travelers in being careful while driving the tractor trolley and took a sharp turn turn, thus resulting in the incident in question. He further further contends that the prosecution witness witness-
PW1/Sameem had at a relevant point of time specifically deposed about the tractor being driven in a rash and negligent manner. Hence, the acquittal of respondent No.2-accused No.2 was incorrect.
10. Learned Additional Additional Public Prosecutor for U.T. Chandigarh Chandigarh, on the other hand, submits that there is a dispute with respect to identity which has to be recorded by the Court, however, no such issue arose during the trial.
11. I have heard learned counsel for the respectiv respective parties and have gone through the documents appended along with the present petition petition, including the judgments passed by both the Courts below.
12. It is not disputed by counsel for the parties that the eye-witness had specifically deposed that the deceased-Baljit Baljit Singh had been driving the motorcycle on the wrong side and entered from the side of the petrol pump on to the slip road so as to join the main road. The witness accepted in the cross-examination examination and it was duly recorded by the trial Court to the effect that the tractor was being driven at a slow speed so as to enter into the slip road, whereas the motorcycle rider was coming from the wrong side at a fast speed so as to enter into the main traffic lane. The said testimony remains unshattered.. Thus, the prime burden of the prosecution to establish rash and negligent driving by accused has not been satisfactorily discharged. Law SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.12.05 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 10 248 CRR CRR-904-2019 (O&M) does not punish the driver for occurrence of an accident. For penal consequences to follow, rashness and negligence oof the driver being charged of an offence too needs to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of care and duty to be discharged by the charged driver is that of a reasonable person. Mere sufferance of a greater loss or harm is not the basis for condoning doning the lapse or fastening criminal liability liability.
13. The shortcomings in the investigation on the part of the Investigating Officer to the effect that he did not join any employee of the petrol pump during the investigation, to determine the role of the deceased- Baljit Singh, was also noticed by the Court.. Further, the deceased deceased-Baljit Singh was also not proved to be holding any valid driving licence as his photograph was not affixed on the driving licence that had been produced in evidence.
14. It was in the said circumstances that a finding was recorded by the Court that it could c not be conclusively held that the respondent No.2 No.2- accused was also rash and negligent in taking a turn towards the slip road towards the main road side. Hence, the order of ac acquittal was passed. The said findings stand affirmed by the Sessions Judge, Chandigarh Chandigarh, who additionally recorded that apart from PW-1/Sameem, PW 1/Sameem, there was no other eye-
witness and that the testimony of the said witness also suffers from contradictions with respect r to the mode and manner in which the accident in question took place. It was reiterated that undisputedly undisputedly, the deceased-Baljit Singh, was himself on the wrong side of the road and was driving the vehicle on the wrong side. The driving license licen purport purported to be in the name of deceased-Baljit Baljit Singh, Singh which was taken in possession vide recovery memo SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.12.05 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 11 248 CRR CRR-904-2019 (O&M) Ex PW3/A, also did not have any photograph of the deceased-Baljit Singh.
15. Going further, even if the finding recorded by the Court that the identity of the driver of the tractor was not conclusively established, is ignored for the time being, the finding of fact that has been undisputedly recorded by both the Courts is that the motorcycle itself was being drive driven on the wrong side of the road. There is i no conclusive evidence to dislodge or dispel the same..
16. While sitting s on the revisional jurisdiction, this Court does not engage in microscopic re-examination examination of the evidence adduced before the Court and would not ordinarily supplant plant its own probabilitie probabilities for the findings of the Courts below.
17. I find that the the view taken by both the Courts cannot be said to be improper, illegal, illegal perverse or unsustainable sustainable on a plain reading of the evidence.. Consequently, Consequently, finding no merit, the present revision petition is dismissed and the judgments passed by both the Courts are affirmed.
18. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
13.11.2025 (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
BHARDWAJ)
Sumit Gusain JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN
2025.12.05 15:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document