Punjab-Haryana High Court
Binder Singh @ Ravinder Singh vs State Of Haryana on 9 September, 2010
Author: A.N.Jindal
Bench: A.N.Jindal
Criminal Revision No.1990 of 2003 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No.1990 of 2003
Date of Decision 09.09.2010
Binder Singh @ Ravinder Singh
...... Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana
...... Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL
Present: Mr.A.P.S.Deol, Senior Advocate,
with Mr.Daldeep Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.J.S.Rattu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana,
for the respondent-State.
*****
A.N.JINDAL, J:
Binder Singh @ Ravinder Singh petitioner-accused (herein referred as 'the accused') was slapped with the rigorous imprisonment of six months each under Sections 279 and 337 IPC respectively and rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.2,000/- under Section 304-A IPC by the trial Court and his appeal was dismissed on 17.09.2003.
On 23.11.1992, deceased Lal Singh, being the driver of truck bearing registration No.PJO/7519, loaded with concrete, was coming from Tosham to Sardulgarh alongwith his conductor Jhanda Singh. At about 11:00 p.m., when they reached near police check post Dariyapur, the accused while driving the truck bearing registration No.HR-25-4477 rashly and negligently came from the opposite side and struck into the truck of the complainant. Resultantly Jhanda Singh and Lal Singh sustained injuries. Criminal Revision No.1990 of 2003 2 However, the accused, who was on the steering wheel of his truck, came down and took the injured to the hospital and after dropping them there, he fled away. Out of them Lal Singh died and Jhanda Singh survived of his injuries.
On the aforesaid statement dated 24.11.1992, made by Jhanda Singh, a case was registered and investigated. The Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence, conducted the inquest report on the dead body, got the post-mortem conducted, prepared the rough site plan of the place of occurrence, took the vehicles into possession and got the same mechanically examined. Ultimately, he presented the challan in the Court.
The accused was charged for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338, 427 and 304-A IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest.
The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charges, examined Phool Singh (PW1), Dr.D.K.Dadich (PW2), Jhanda Singh (PW3), Bhajan Lal (PW4) and Balbir Singh, Investigating Officer (PW5).
In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the allegations and pleaded his false implication. No evidence was led in defence.
The trial ended in conviction. His appeal was also dismissed. Arguments heard. Record perused.
The accident in this case took place at 11:00 p.m. and as per MLR, the injured was admitted in the hospital on the same day at 10:45 p.m. The ruqa was sent to the Police Station Sadar, Fatehabad, on the same day at 11:30 a.m. The MLR relating to Jhanda Singh Ex.PW2/C reveals that he was never unconscious and he was also admitted alongwith deceased Lal Criminal Revision No.1990 of 2003 3 Singh but the cause of eight hours delay is not explained in lodging the FIR as the statement Ex.PC/1 reveals that it was recorded at 8:30 a.m. on 24.11.1992 and the FIR was recorded on the same day at 8:45 a.m. The report with regard to unfitness of Jhanda Singh on the next day at 12:20 a.m. appears to be not correct as the MLR of Jhanda Singh conducted at 10:45 p.m. on 23.11.1992 reveals that he was conscious.
I also find merit in the next contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the accident took place quite on the Dariapur Barrier. The deceased Lal Singh was coming from Fatehabad side on the truck bearing registration No.PJO-7519 whereas the accused is stated to be coming on the truck bearing registration No.HR-25-4477 from the opposite side. As per FIR, the accident is stated to be a head on collusion. If we enact a scenario, it is impossible to find fault with the accused for the reasons, firstly that at the barrier both the vehicles are supposed to be slow for the purpose of payment of tax, secondly, if it was a head on collusion then it is difficult to say that the complainant was not rash and that the accused was at fault and thirdly the identity of the accused is not established.
The star witness in the case namely Jhanda Singh (PW3) has nowhere stated that he had identified the accused during that hours of night and it is in evidence that the accused after leaving the deceased and the injured in the hospital, had fled away. Jhanda Singh (PW3) admits that after 15-20 minutes of the accident, he became unconscious, thus, test identification of the accused in the aforesaid circumstances of the case had become essential but the Investigating Officer failed to prove his obligation. Jhanda Singh (PW3) did not know the name of the driver earlier. He admits Criminal Revision No.1990 of 2003 4 that he had disclosed the name of the accused to the police after holding an inquiry. If he knew the accused earlier then he would not have made such a statement.
The FIR also appears to be anti-dated. The occurrence is stated to have taken place on 23.11.1992 whereas the FIR was recorded on the next day i.e. 24.11.1992 at 8:45 a.m. on the statement of Jhanda Singh but he has denied making such statement on 24.11.1992. He has stated that the police recorded his statement Ex.PC, 3-4 days after the occurrence in the hospital. During the cross-examination, he has further stated that on the day of occurrence, he did not disclose about the occurrence at the police post situated nearby the place where the accident had taken place. He has admitted that he is illiterate and cannot read the number upon the vehicle but the FIR contains the number of the offending vehicle. He is very categoric in his statement when he testifies that the police did not record his statement at the place of occurrence and the police had come to him on the 3rd day of the incident and recorded the statement at 4:00 p.m. It is further in his statement that he had disclosed about the name of the accused after making inquiry from the shop-keepers. Thus, no doubt is left in my mind that lot of padding has been done by the Investigating Officer and the case was concocted against the accused. That apart, the testimony of Jhanda Singh does not find corroboration from any other evidence. It was night time. Jhanda Singh is stated to be the conductor and supposed to sit on the rear portion of the vehicle, as such, in view of the infirmities as referred to above in his statement, he cannot be said to be a truthful witness.
Even otherwise, on scrutiny of the impugned judgment, it transpires that the trial Court has not taken note of the aforesaid material Criminal Revision No.1990 of 2003 5 aspects of the case, therefore, the judgment appears to be based on misreading and mis-appreciation of evidence, consequently interference at my end has become inevitable.
For the aforesaid discussion, I accept the petition, set aside the impugned judgment and acquit the accused of the charges framed against him. He is directed to be set at liberty forthwith. Bail bond and surety bond, furnished by him, stand discharged. Fine, if any deposited by him, be refunded.
(A.N.Jindal) Judge 09.09.2010 mamta-II