Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana vs Narveer And Others on 8 August, 2011
Author: S.S. Saron
Bench: S.S. Saron, Jora Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Appeal No.712-DBA of 2002
Date of decision:-08.08.2011.
State of Haryana .....Appellant.
Versus
Narveer and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SARON
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH
Present: Mr. H. S. Deol, Addl. AG, Haryana.
Mr. Jitender Dhanda, Advocate for the respondents.
S.S. SARON, J.
The State of Haryana has filed this appeal against the acquittal of the respondents by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar vide judgment and order dated 18.12.2001.
The FIR (Ex.PL/1) was registered on the basis of a memo (Ex.PL) sent by Sajjan Kumar ASI Police Station, Hansi (PW-7). ASI Sajjan Kumar (PW-7) along with UGC Dharam Lal and Constable Ajit Singh on 14.09.1998 at about 11.00 pm in connection with checking had reached Sisai Check Post, Hansi in a Government vehicle bearing No.HR- 20/3033 which was being driven by Constable Sajjan Singh. Mahender Singh Head Constable (PW-6), Constable Joginder Singh and Constable Bhim Singh were found present there on duty. While ASI Sajjan Kumar (PW-7) was talking with them, a Maruti car was seen coming from the side of Hansi City whose driver was driving in a fast and negligent manner. Sajjan Kumar ASI (PW-7) signalled the driver to stop the car. However, the driver did not stop the car and tried to cross the barricade put by the Crl. Appeal No.712-DBA of 2002 -2- police party. On this the driver directly struck his vehicle against the bridge of the canal. ASI Sajjan Kumar (PW-7) with the help of the police officials then encircled the car and apprehended its driver as also four boys who were sitting in the car. Their identities were asked for on which the driver disclosed his name as Narveer Singh (respondent No.1) and the others disclosed their respective names as Rajesh Kumar (respondent No.2), Suresh Kumar (respondent No.3), Pardeep Kumar (non-respondent) and Davender Kumar (respondent No.4). On search of the car, some torn boxes (petties) of liquor and one jute bag, which was full were found. After arranging a photographer, photographs of the place of occurrence were got taken. Due to the vehicle being struck, the bumper of the vehicle, the tyre on the side of the driver, window of the driver's side and front windscreen glass were damaged. The jute bag was taken out from the vehicle and opened and checked. Pouches of liquor were found in it. On counting 450 plastic pouches of 'Jagadhari Marka' country made liquor were recovered. Out of which 45 pouches were separated as sample parcel and the remaining pouches were put back in the same jute bag. Bottles of liquour which were found in torn condition boxes (petties) in the boot of the car were counted and on counting 72 sealed bottles of country made liqour 'Jagadhari Marka' corks and glass pieces of 48 broken bottles were recovered from the broken boxes (petties). Out of 72 bottles, eight bottles of liquor were separated as sample. The samples, recovered jute bags, recovered bottles, recovered 48 corks and glass pieces of broken bottles were sealed at the spot by ASI Sajjan Kumar (PW-7) with his seal impression 'SK'. After retaining sample of the seal, the small bags (kattas) containing pieces of glass, broken lids, broken and torn cardboard boxes, recovered gunny bags, pouches, sample of pouches, samples of bottles, Crl. Appeal No.712-DBA of 2002 -3- recovered bottles and car bearing registration No.DNB-7241 were taken in possession by a separate memo. The seal after use was handedover to Mahender Singh Head Constable (PW-6). Signatures of Surender son of Jai Gopal (photographer) (PW-2) and Mahender Singh (PW-6) were obtained on the recovery memo. The accused Narveer (respondent No.1), Rajesh (respondent No.2), Suresh (respondent No.3), Pardeep (non- respondent) and Davender (respondent No.4) had by keeping in their possession 450 pouches of liquor and 72 bottles of country made liqour; besides, accused Narveer (respondent No.1) while driving his vehicle while putting to risk his own life along with his occupants who were sitting in the car had committed an offence under Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 and also Sections 279 and 336 IPC. The writing was, therefore, being sent to the Police Station through Constable Ajit Singh for registration of a case (FIR). The case number after registration was asked to be informed. ASI Sajjan Kumar (PW-7) along with other police officials was busy in conducting the investigation at the spot. On receipt of the writing (Ex.PI), FIR (Ex.PL/1) was registered by SI Iqbal Kaur for the aforesaid offences. Copy of police file along with the original writing was sent to ASI Sajjan Kumar (PW-7) at the spot through the Constable who had brought the writing for conducting the investigation. Sajjan Kumar ASI (PW-7) carried out investigation at the spot. He prepared rough site plan (Ex.PM) of the place of occurrence with correct marginal notes. The accused in the case were arrested and notice (Ex.PN) was served on them. Sajjan Kumar ASI (PW-7) recorded the statements of the witnesses without any addition or omission. On return to the police station, he deposited the case property along with sample parcel and sample seal with the MHC. The accused (respondents No.1 to 4) and Pardeep Kumar (non- Crl. Appeal No.712-DBA of 2002 -4- respondent) were put in the police lock up. The accused were also got medically examined from Civil Hospital, Hansi by moving an application Ex.PD to Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Hansi in this regard. A scaled site plan from Raju Draftsman was got prepared. The contraband, the car and the driving licence of Narveer Singh-respondent No.1 were taken in possession vide memo Ex.PK. The samples that were taken were sent for chemical examination.
After completion of investigation, the police report (challan) in terms of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C-for short) was filed by the SHO, Police Station, Hansi in the Court of the Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hansi on 26.02.1999 for the offence under Sections 279, 336 and 307 IPC. The said learned Magistrate in view of the offence under Section 307 IPC being alleged, which was exclusively triable by the Court of Session; vide order dated 17.04.1999 committed the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Hisar for trial. The accused Narveer, Suresh, Rajesh, Pardeep and Davender were directed to appear before the learned Sessions Judge, Hisar on 04.05.1999.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar to whom the case was assigned on 18.05.1999 charge sheeted the accused alleging that the accused Narveer, Rajesh, Suresh, Pardeep and Davender on 15.09.1998 in the area of city Hansi, Narveer the driver drove his Maruti car No.DNB-7241 rash at a public way in a manner so rash and negligent as to endanger the life of police party headed by ASI Sajjan Kumar (PW-7) and thereby he committed an offence punishable under Section 279 IPC. Secondly, on the said date, time and place, all the accused Narveer, Rajesh, Suresh, Pardeep and Davender in furtherance of the common intention of Narveer drove Maruti Car No.DNB-7241 on a public way in a Crl. Appeal No.712-DBA of 2002 -5- manner so rash and negligent as to endanger the life of the police party headed by Sajjan Kumar ASI (PW-7) and thereby Narveer committed an offence under Section 307 IPC while Rajesh, Suresh, Pardeep and Davender committed an offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. Thirdly, on the said date time and place, all the accused Narveer, Rajesh, Suresh, Pardeep and Davender had kept in their conscious possession 450 pouches of plastic containing liquor and 72 bottles of liquor 'marka Jagadhari' and 48 corks in the boot of the Maruti Car No.DNB-7241 without any permit or licence and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914. It was directed that all the accused be tried by Court for the said charges. The contents of the charges were read over to the accused in simple Hindi and copies were supplied to them. The prosecution in order to prove its case, examined as many as seven witnesses and also tendered documents in evidence. The statements of the acused in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded. Narveer (respondent No.1) in his statement took the stand that he had been falsely implicated in the case. He had no concern with the car and the liquor. He had been taken in custody by the police and given a severe beating at the Police Station and when he threatened to report the matter to the higher authority, the police implicated him in the present case. He was innocent. Rajesh, Suresh, Davender (respondent Nos.2 to 4) and Pardeep (non-respondent) also took the same stand as was taken by Narveer (respondent No.1). The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar after considering the evidence and material on record acquitted the respondents as also Pardeep (non-respondent).
The State of Haryana aggrieved against the acquittal of the respondents Narveer, Suresh, Rajesh and Davender has filed the present Crl. Appeal No.712-DBA of 2002 -6- appeal. However, no appeal has been filed against the acquittal of the Pardeep. There is no reason given as to why an appeal against the acquittal of Pardeep has not been filed.
Shri. H. S. Deol, Addl. AG, Haryana for the appellant/State has submitted that the prosecution has proved its case against the respondents beyond shadow of doubt, however, the learned trial Court gravely erred in acquitting the respondents. It is submitted that the learned trial Court had wrongly held that in terms of Section 218 Cr.P.C, the charge under the Punjab Excise Act could not be tried in one trial. It was held by the learned trial Court that it is provided in terms of Section 218 Cr.P.C that for every distinct offence of which any person is accused there shall be a separate charge, and every such charge shall be tried separately; provided that where the accused person by an application in writing so desires and the Magistrate is of the opinion that such person is not likely to be prejudiced thereby, the Magistrate may try together all or any number of charges framed against such person. In the present case, it was observed that the accused had not made any separate application for trying their offence under the Punjab Excise Act, with the offences under Sections 279 and 307 IPC and nor such permission was granted by the Court. Therefore, according to the learned Sessions Judge, the charge sheet itself was void and the accused could not be tried in the same trial for the offences under Sections 279 and 307 IPC. It is submitted that in fact the accused could be tried together for the offences for which they were charged and in any case, independent of the charge under the Excise Act, the respondents are liable to be convicted and sentenced in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 307 IPC.
In response, learned counsel appearing for the respondents Crl. Appeal No.712-DBA of 2002 -7- has submitted that the learned trial Court has recorded cogent and convincing reasons for acquitting the respondents and no case whatsoever is made out against the respondents for convicting and sentencing them. It is further submitted that the offence under Sections 279 and 307 IPC have not even remotely been established. The car according to the prosecution case itself hit against the canal bridge and the recovered bottles of liquor and country made liquor were not found to be that of country made liquor and the reports Ex.PO and Ex.PO/1 in this regard are unclear. Therefore, the offence under Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act in any case is not made out. As such, it is submitted that the order passed by the learned trial Court is liable to be sustained and upheld.
We have given our thoughtful considertion to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance gone through the record of the case. The case, as already noticed, is based on the memo (Ex.PL) sent by Sajjan Kumar ASI, Police Station, City Hansi (PW-7) to the SHO Police Station, Hansi on the basis of which FIR (Ex.PL/1) was registered. ASI Sajjan Kumar (PW-7) appeared in the witness box and deposed that on 14.09.1998, he was posted as ASI at Police Station, City Hansi. On the intervening night as on 14/15.09.1998 at about 11.00 pm, Sajjan Kumar ASI (PW-7) along with UGC Dharm Pal and Constable Ajit Singh went to Sisai bridge in connection with carrying out checkings. They went on a Government Vehicle. There ASI Sajjan Kumar (PW-7) found Head Constable Mahender Singh (PW-6), Constable Joginder Singh and Constable Bhim Singh on duty at the check post. The police officials were talking amongst themselves and in the meantime a Maruti car No.DNB-7241 was seen coming from the side of Hansi City. The said car was driven in a rash and negligent manner. Sajjan Kumar ASI Crl. Appeal No.712-DBA of 2002 -8- (PW-7) signalled to its driver to stop the vehicle, but the driver of the car did not stop the car and with an intent to kill Mahender Singh Head Constable (PW-6) tried to run over him with the car. Thereafter, the car struck against the canal bridge and Mahender Singh Head Constable (PW-
6) had a narrow escape. ASI Sajjan Kumar (PW-7) along with other police officials encircled the car and apprehended the driver of the car and four others occupants who were in the car. The car was driven by Narveer (respondent No.1). The other accused were Suresh, Rajesh, Davender (respondents No.2 to 4) and Pardeep (non-respondent). On search of the car, 450 pouches of 'Jagadhari marka' country made liquor were recovered from one bag, out of which 45 pouches were separated as sample, while remaining pouches Ex.P9 to Ex.P413 were put back in the same bag. Bottles numbering 72 of country made liquor 'Jagadhari marka' were recovered from the broken boxes (Petties). Out of which 8 bottles were separated as sample parcels and the remaining bottles were Ex.P414 to Ex.P471. Corks of 48 broken bottles of liquor Ex.P498 to Ex.P525 were recovered. The sample parcels and residual parcels were sealed at the spot by ASI Sajjan Kumar (PW-7) with the seal of 'SK'. The seal after use was handed over to Mahender Singh Head Constable (PW-6). The case property was taken in possession by ASI Sajjan Kumar (PW-7) vide memo Ex.PK which was attested by Mahender Singh Head Constable (PW-6) and Surender son of Jai Gopal (Photographer PW-2), who had been called at the spot and had taken photographs of the place of occurrence and the damaged car. The driving licence (Ex.P526) of the accused Narveer (respondent No.1) was also taken in possession at the spot vide recovery memo Ex.PK. The car in question was also taken in possession vide memo Ex.PK. Memo (Ruqa) Ex.PL was sent to the police station on which Crl. Appeal No.712-DBA of 2002 -9- formal FIR Ex.PL/1 was recorded by Iqbal Kaur SI. Sajjan Kumar ASI (PW-7) also prepared at the spot the rough site plan (Ex.PM) of the place of occurrence with correct marginal notes. The accused in the case were arrested and were given notice (Ex.PN) regarding their arrest. Besides, statements of the witnesses were recorded without any addition or omission. On return to the Police Station, Sajjan Kumar ASI (PW-7) deposited the case property along with the sample parcel and sample seal with the MHC and put the accused in the police lock up. He had also got them medically examined from Civil Hospital, Hansi. He moved an application (Ex.PD) in this regard to the Medical Officer, General Hospital, Hansi. ASI Sajjan Kumar (PW-7) also got prepared a scaled site plan from Raju Draftsman. After receipt of the report of Chemical examiner Ex.PO with annexures Ex.PO/1 and Ex.PO/2, the challan was filed by Abehy Singh Inspector SHO whose signatures Sajjan Kumar ASI (PW-7) identified. In cross-examination, it is stated by Sajjan Kumar ASI (PW-7) that in ruqa (Ex.PL) he had not mentioned that the car had tried to run over Mahender Singh Head Constable (PW-6); besides, it was stated as correct that it was not mentioned in ruqa (Ex.PL) that Mahender Singh Head Constable (PW-6) had a narrow escape. It was also accepted as correct that the ruqa (Ex.PL) was sent for registration of a case under Sections 279 and 336 IPC as also Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act. It is also accepted as correct that formal FIR (Ex.PL/1) was registered for the offences under Sections 279 and 336 IPC; as also Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act. It was denied as incorrect that he had intentionally made a vital improvements to make the offence one under Section 307 IPC. It was accepted as correct that upto 12.15 am, there was no version that the driver of the car had tried to run over Mahender Singh Head Crl. Appeal No.712-DBA of 2002 - 10 - Constable (PW-6). It was accepted that the statement of Mahender Singh Head Constable (PW-6) was recorded at 1.30 am and he added the offence under Section 307 IPC on the basis of that statement. It was accepted as correct that it was not in his knowledge that the driver of the car had tried to run over Mahender Singh Head Constable (PW-6) till the statement of Mahender Singh Head Constable (PW-6) was not recorded.
Mahender Singh Head Constable appeared as PW-6. He has deposed on the same lines as that of Sajjan Kumar ASI (PW-7) regarding his presence at Sisai bridge, Hansi in connection with checking. Regarding the Maruti car being driven in a rash and negligent manner as also regarding the apprehending the accused and the recovery of the contraband. It is inter alia stated by Mahender Singh Head Constable (PW-6), in the cross-examination that the driver of the car did not try to stop after seeing the signal of the police. The speed of the car was about 70 to 80 Kilometers per hour at that time. Head Constable Mahender Singh (PW-6), Joginder Singh Constable and Bhim Singh Constable were standing in the middle of the road whereas Sajjan Kumar ASI (PW-7) was standing on the 'katcha' (unmettaled) portion of the road at a distance of about 7-8 feet from them. They did not try to go on one side of the road after seeing the position of the car. They were on the left berm of the road and were standing on the bridge. It is stated that two vehicles can easily cross from that bridge. He (Mahender Singh Head Constable PW-6) did not fall on the ground and he receded his steps in the backward direction when the accused had tried to run over him. The car struck against the second bridge on the right side of the bridge. There is a distance of about 3-4 feet between both the bridges. It is stated that the accused had remained sitting in the car when it struck against the bridge. The accused Crl. Appeal No.712-DBA of 2002 - 11 - were then apprehended. The plastic bags were lying in between the driver's and rear seats and pettis (boxes) were lying in the boot of the car. A Constable was sent to procure a quarter by ASI Sajjan Kumar (PW-7). It took about one hour in preparing and separating the recovered liquor. It is denied that an abandoned car was recovered by the police much earlier to the time given by him and later the accused were falsely implicated in the case.
Surender Kumar son of Jai Gopal (Photographer) (PW-2) has studio in the name of Sharma Studio at Hansi. On 15.09.1998 on the asking of the police, he went to the spot and took photographs which are Ex.P-1 to P-4 and its negatives are Ex.P-5 to P-8. These were true and correct according to the spot in respect of one Maruti car. In cross- examination, it is stated that he (Surender Kumar PW-2) reached at the spot at 11.30/12.00 midnight. There were 3-4 police officials present there. No other person was found present at the time of occurrence. Heavy traffic runs on the road. Place of occurrence was at the octroi post of Hansi. ASI Sajjan Kumar (PW-7) had sent some police officials to trace the accused. Surender Kumar (PW-2) denied that he had not taken the photographs at the spot.
As already noticed the accused in their statements have denied their involvement and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case. It is stated that they had no concern with the car and the liquor. They were taken in custody by the police and severely beaten at the police station and when they threatened to report the matter to the higher police authority, the police had implicated them in this case.
The learned trial Court after considering the evidence and material on record held that in the FIR, the only allegation was regarding Crl. Appeal No.712-DBA of 2002 - 12 - rash and negligent driving and later on the offence under Section 307 IPC was added on the statement of Mahender Singh Head Constable (PW-6). Admittedly no injury was caused to any of the police officials due to the rash and negligent driving of Narveer (respondent No.1), the driver of the Maruti car. There is nothing to show that there was any intention on the part of the Narveer (respondent No.1) or the others to cause the murder of the Mahender Singh, Head Constable (PW-6) who was on duty at the time of the incident. Besides, according to Mahender Singh Head Constable (PW-6), he had taken a step back when the car was seen coming towards him in a rash and negligent manner. In order to make out an offence under Section 307 IPC it is to be shown and established that the act done by Narveer (respondent No.1) was with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if he by that act had caused the death of Mahender Singh Head Constable (PW-6), he would be guilty of murder. For the offence of attempt to murder to be established it is necessary to satisfy mens rea i.e. guilty intention and actus rea i.e. the act of the person complained against. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances there is to be some overt act on the part of Narveer (respondent No.1) and others combined with mens rea to hold that the offence under Section 307 IPC has been made out and that the act complained of would have constituted an offence of murder, if death had occurred. In a case of attempt to murder, the elements of the offence of murder are to be there except that the death does not occur. Indeed there is no intention or knowledge on the part of the Narveer (respondent No.1) to run over Head Constable Mahender Singh (PW-6) with an intention to cause his death. Therefore, the learned trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that the offence under Section 307 IPC was not made out.
Crl. Appeal No.712-DBA of 2002 - 13 -
Fourty five pouches of liquor and 72 bottles of country made liquor were recovered. It may be noticed that samples that were taken were not taken from each of the pouches or bottle separately. Rather some of the bottles and some of the pouches were separated and treated as sample. It was observed by the learned trial Court that prosecution was required to take separate samples from each of the pouches and from each of the bottles. It was also observed that out of 75 bottles of country made liquor that were recovered only 8 bottles were separated as samples. The prosecution in fact was required to take separate sample from each of the bottles. Therefore, it was held that all the 72 bottles and the pouches that were recovered cannot be said to be containing country made liquor. The said fact it was observed created a doubt in the prosecution case which was falsified from the said fact.
We have seen the reports Ex.PO and Ex.PO/1 of the Chemical Examiner. Ex.PO merely mentions that the recovered articles were received and the opinion and data are attached. Ex.PO/1 contains the analytical data which mentions that only furfural was present. The description is mentioned as light in respect of other items including alchol, copper, iron and pyridine. Obsecuration is mentioned as 1.46 in respect of some samples and 1.72 in respect of some and the Alc. St. % proof is mentioned as 39.04. There is no chemical analysis indicated that the sample were of country made liquor, but the Alc. St. % proof is less than 50%. Therefore, the report of the chemical examiner does not give any opinion as regards the contents of the contraband and it would be wholy unsafe to base a conviction on the basis of such reports.
The fact that the charges have been jointly tried is in the circumstances not of much consequence. The learned trial Court referred Crl. Appeal No.712-DBA of 2002 - 14 - to the provisions of Section 218 Cr.P.C and held that for every distinct offence of which any person is accused, there shall be a separate charge and every such charge shall be tried separately. The learned trial Court, however, did not consider the entire Section 218 Cr.P.C which reads as under:-
"218. Separate Charges for distinct offences:-(1) For every distinct offence of which any person is accused there shall be a separate charge and every such charge shall be tried separately:
Provided that where the accused person, by an application in writing, so desires and the Magistrate is of opinion that such person is not likely to be prejudiced thereby the Magistrate may try together all or any number of the charges framed against such person.
(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall affect the operation of the provisions of Sections 219, 220, 221 and 223."
A perusal of the above shows that Section 218 Cr.P.C is a general rule that for every distinct offence of which any person is accused there are to be separate charge and that every such charge is to be tried separately. The distinct offence mentioned in Section 218(1) Cr.P.C means offences which have no connection with each other. However, Sub- Section (2) of Section 218 envisages that nothing in Sub-Section (1) shall affect the operation of the provisions of Sections 219 to 223 Cr.P.C. Section 219 Cr.P.C. provides for three offences of the same kind within year may be charged together. Section 220 Cr.P.C. relates to trial for more Crl. Appeal No.712-DBA of 2002 - 15 - than one offence Section 220(1) Cr.P.C. reads as under:-
"220. Trial for more than one offence:-(1) If, in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, more offences than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence."
In terms of the above, it is provided that in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, more offences than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for every such offence. Section 220 Cr.P.C, therefore, is an exception to the general rule laid down in Section 218 Cr.P.C that there should be a separate trial for every offence charged. The person accused in terms of Sub-Section (1) of Section 220 Cr.P.C can be charged and tried in the same trial for any number of offences which he has committed in one series of act so connected with each other as to form part of the same transaction. A common trial of the offences which are in one series of the case connected together and which form of same transaction, would not suffer from any error. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, the act of rash and negligent driving that is alleged against the respondents and by such act Maruti car being driven by Narveer (respondent No.1) striking against the bridge of the canal and recovery of the contraband from the same are part of the same transaction for which separate and distinct charges have been framed. Their trial in respect of the same transaction, therefore, cannot be faulted. The findings of the learned trial Court on this aspect are, as such, incorrect. However, the same would not affect the ultimate decision as no sufficient evidence to prove and establish that the contraband that was recovered from the car would constitute an offence Crl. Appeal No.712-DBA of 2002 - 16 - under Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 as the report of the chemical examiner is quite unclear and ill-defined.
No sufficient evidence has been led by the prosecution as regards the offence under Section 279 IPC except that it is stated that the car was driven in a rash and negligent manner. It was signalled to stop and it was alleged that the driver of the car namely Narveer (respondent No.1) did not stop the car and tried to run over Mahender Singh Head Constable (PW-6). Due to the rash and negligent driving, the car struck against the canal bridge. In view of the statement of Sajjan Kumar ASI (PW-7) and Mahender Singh Head Constable (PW-6), there is nothing to show that the car was indeed driven in a rash and negligent manner. The car it appears was signalled to stop and it hit the canal bridge. It was found to contain contraband liquor, which though is not established and the prosecution case was built. The learned trial Court has recorded sound reasons for acquitting the respondents and has found the case of the prosecution to be not made out. Merely because another view may be possible, the findings and conclusions reached at by the learned trial Court are not to be upset or interfered with by dislodging the same.
In the circumstances, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(S.S. Saron) Judge (Jora Singh) Judge 08.08.2011 A.kaundal