Criminal Misc. No.263-MA of 2006 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
Criminal Misc. No.263-MA of 2006
Date of Decision:12.02.2009
State of Punjab
.....Applicant
Vs.
Prem Lal
.....Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL
Present:- Mr. T.S. Salana, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab
for the applicant.
Mr. D.K. Singal, Advocate for the respondent.
****
JUDGMENT
HARBANS LAL, J.
This application has been moved under Section 378(3) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of leave to appeal against the
judgment dated 14.12.2005 passed by the Court of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Ropar whereby he acquitted the accused of the charged offences
by giving a benefit of reasonable doubt.
The facts in brief are that on 22.10.2002 as usual after finishing
his work Harbhajan Singh PW was proceeding to his village Alipur on his
scooter bearing registration No. PB-12-C-8786 and parallel to him, a cyclist
was also moving towards Khuaspura. When Harbhajan Singh neared Saini
Royal Hotel around 5:15 P.M, meanwhile a bus bearing registration No.
HP-24A-3057 came behind from Ropar side at a fast speed without blowing
Criminal Misc. No.263-MA of 2006 -2-
any horn, being driven by the accused in a rash and negligent manner and
struck against his scooter as well as the afore-mentioned cyclist. As a result
of its impact, the cyclist fell down on the road. The bus driver dragged his
scooter as well as the cycle to some extent and as its consequence, they both
received multiple injuries on their respective persons. In the meantime,
Jagtar Singh son of Karnail Singh, resident of Village Alipur and Jagdish
Singh son of Prem Singh, resident of Sadabarat reached the spot. Harbhajan
Singh along with cyclist was removed to Civil Hospital, Ropar. Later on,
name of the cyclist was learnt to be Rakesh Kumar alias Risan son of Prem
Singh resident of Sadabarat. Balbir Singh alias Bimbar son of Amar Singh,
resident of Sadabarat also received injuries.
The accused was charged under Sections 279/337/338/304-A of
IPC to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution
examined as many as seven witnesses. On close of the prosecution
evidence, when examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, the accused denied
all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence
against him and pleaded innocence. He did not adduce any evidence in
defence. After hearing the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State,
the learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the
learned trial Court acquitted the accused as noticed at the outset. Feeling
aggrieved with his acquittal, the State – appellant has preferred this appeal.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides
perusing the record with due care and circumspection.
Mr. T.S. Salana, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab on behalf of
the State – appellant maintained with a good deal of force that on evaluating
Criminal Misc. No.263-MA of 2006 -3-
the evidence tendered by Harbhajan Singh complainant PW2, it transpires
that the accident took place, because of the rashness or negligence on part of
the accused- respondent. Thus, the learned trial Court was not justified in
acquitting him. This contention merits rejection. It is an acknowledged
principle of law that the statement of a witness is to be read as a whole. As
surfaces in the cross-examination of Harbahajan Singh PW2, he saw the
accused for the first time in the Court and his name was disclosed to him by
the police in the hospital and he was not previously known to him. It is
discernible from this evidence that the accused was not known to this
witness earlier. It is such an occurrence, in which this witness would have
not come face to face with the accused. So, how he would have been able to
recollect the identifying features of the accused in the Court. Admittedly,
the accused was not made to join the test identification parade as provided
under Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act. In such state of affairs, it is
very difficult to believe that the person identified by this witness was the
same, who had caused the accident. It is in the cross-examination of Jagdish
Singh PW3 that he came at the spot after 15 minutes of the accident. The
further examination of Balbir Singh PW4 injured eye-witness was deferred,
whereafter he was never tendered for his cross-examination. Thus, his
partial statement does not fall within the definition of Section 3 of Indian
Evidence Act. This Section contemplates that unless a witness is subjected
to cross-examination, his incomplete statement does not fall within the
purport of evidence. As regards, Jagtar Singh PW5, he also went on to say
that he had reached the spot after taking place of the accident. To say the
least of it, there is no evidence connecting the accused- respondent with the
Criminal Misc. No.263-MA of 2006 -4-
occurrence. Consequently, no ground is made out for grant of leave to
appeal against the judgment dated 14.12.2005. Sequelly, this application is
dismissed.
February 12, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No