Punjab-Haryana High Court
The State (U.T. Chandigarh) vs Manpreet Singh on 23 August, 2010
Author: A.N.Jindal
Bench: A.N. Jindal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No. 741-SB A of 2002
Date of decision: 23.8.2010
The State (U.T. Chandigarh)
......... Appellant
Versus
Manpreet Singh
......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL
Present: Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate
for U.T., Chandigarh i.e. appellant.
Mr. S.S. Narula, Advocate
Mr. Sandeep Sharma and Mr. K.S. Sidhu, Advocates
for the respondent.
A.N.JINDAL, J.
This appeal has arisen out of the judgement of acquittal 7.5.1999 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh acquitting the accused Manpreet Singh (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') for the offences under Section 279, 304-A IPC.
In the nutshell, the allegations are that on 5th March, 1993 at 2.30 P.M., when Hans Raj along with her daughter Ms. Veena complainant were crossing the dividing road of Sector 15-16, Chandigarh, then the accused while driving Moped Hero Puch bearing registration No. PB-12-2268 rashly and negligently hit Hans Raj thereby, causing his death. The FIR was lodged at the instance of Ms. Veena on 8th March, 1993, consequent to which the case was investigated. On completion of investigation, the challan was presented. Upon trial, the accused was acquitted.
Heard, having scrutinised impugned judgement the same sans any defect, illegality much irregularity warranting interference by this Court. The proof of rashness or negligence which is the sine qua non for proving the offences under Section 304-A IPC stands not established. Ms. Veena, PW 2 has nowhere stated as to how the accused was rash or negligent in driving the Moped. That apart, there is three days delay in lodging first information report which stands un-explained. The deceased appears to be an old man of 79 years and might have met with an accident due to mis-judgement while Criminal Appeal No. 741-SB A of 2002 -2- crossing the road. After the accident, the deceased must have been shifted to the hospital where doctors might have sent the ruqa to the police station. The doctor might have recorded the summary of the case and about the name of the person who brought him to the hospital. The police might have recorded daily diary report regarding the receipt of ruqa but all these documents have not come forth. Therefore, it can't be said if Ms. Veena was present at the time of occurrence and she took him to the hospital. Without the proof of aforesaid documents it can't be said that Hans Raj died as a result of fault on the part of the accused. The accused himself did not lodge any report while finding fault with the accused. The Investigating Officer who had visited the Police Station on 5th March, 1993 must have recorded the daily diary report but the same has not been proved. The doctor has also not recorded the cause of death in the post-mortem report. Ms. Veena has admitted in her cross- examination that she was a government employee and her duty hours are 8.30 am to 1.30 pm then in such situation, she in all probabilities could not reach the place of occurrence within one hour of her duty was over. Had she been present at the spot and taken her father to the hospital then she must have been recorded as a person accompanying the father to the hospital. No medical record of Hans Raj w.e.f. 5.3.1993 till he ultimately died has been proved.
The Trial Court appears to have taken right view of the matter and appreciated the evidence in the right perspective. Thus, finding no grounds to interfere the appeal is dismissed.
(A.N. Jindal) Judge 23.8.2010 shabha