Dismissed

Satish Kumar v. Ishwar Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Dec 2008CRM-A/509/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal against acquittal in a rash driving offense, the High Court upheld the Trial Magistrate's finding. The court held that the eyewitness testimony was unreliable, the accused was not given a chance to halt the vehicle, and the witnesses' failure to report immediately raised doubts about the accident report.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal was dismissed; the impugned order exonerating the respondent was upheld.

Satish Kumar Vs Ishwar Singh — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

Crl. Appeal No.509-MA of 2008

¶2

¶3

-1-

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

Crl. Appeal No.509-MA of 2008 Date of decision:01.12.2008.

Satish Kumar

...Appellant

Versus

Ishwar Singh

…Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND.

¶12

¶13

Present: Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate for the appellant.

¶14

¶15

S.D.ANAND, J.

¶16

Criminal Misc. No.53473 of 2008

¶17

For the affidavit-supported reasons indicated in the application, the Criminal Misc. application is allowed and the delay of 60 days in fling the appeal is condoned.

¶18

Criminal Appeal No. 509-MA of 2008

¶19

The appellant/complainant filed a complaint under Section 279-304-AIPC on the allegations which may be indicated as under:-

¶20

On 30.6.1999, Sunil Kumar (a brother of the appellant) was riding motor-cycle bearing Registration No.HR-12-A-8053 and was proceeding to Gohana Road from his village to Rohtak. When he reached near the Farm House of Seth Shri Krishan Dass, the offending vehicle, (a bus of Haryana Roadways bearing Registration No.HR-19PA-0164) came from Rohtak side while it was being driven by respondent/accused at a rash speed and in a negligent manner, it hit the motor-cycle driven by Sunil Kumar who sustained grievous injuries and was shifted to Medical College,

¶21

Crl. Appeal No.509-MA of 2008 -2-

¶22

¶23

Rohtak by the police. However, he succumbed to the injuries over there. The impugned occurrence had been witnessed by Narinder Singh son of Mohar Singh and Devinder Singh son of Mahabir Singh who were travelling by that bus. The respondent/accused did not bring the offending vehicle to a halt at the site of accident. The Investigating Agency made a request to learned Illaqa Magistrate for cancellation of the FIR as untraced. A notice was sent to the appellant/complainant. After hearing him, the learned Magistrate directed further investigation. However, the Investigating Agency did not lend ear to the appellant/complainant, thereby impelling him to file the impugned complaint.

¶24

The appellant/complainant appeared at the trial as PW-3 and also examined Narinder Singh as PW-1 and Devinder Singh as PW-2. Dr. Neelam Thapar was examined as PW-4 and ASI Baldev Singh examined as PW-5.

¶25

The learned Magistrate invalidated the presentation made by the appellant/complainant by recording the following observations:-

¶26

“17. Even otherwise, Satish complainant is not an eye witness. In his cross-examination, he has also admitted that he has not seen the accident with his own eyes. Complainant is banking upon the testimony of alleged eye witness namely Narender (PW1) and Devender (PW2). However, even testimony of aforesaid witnesses cannot be also made the basis for holding the accused guilty under the aforesaid sections because Narender (PW1) in his cross examination has admitted that Sunil is the brother in law of his elder brother. It means Narender, PW1, was already known to deceased Sunil. As per his version, he was traveling in the bus bearing No.HR-19PA/0164 which caused the accident with

¶27

Crl. Appeal No.509-MA of 2008

¶28

-3-

¶29

¶30

the Motorcycle being driven by deceased Sunil. However, in his examination in chief itself, he has stated that they have disclosed this matter regarding seeing occurrence on Tehranvi of deceased Sunil. Even complainant in his examination in chief itself has stated that they came to know about the real facts only on 12.7.1999 on the day of Tehranvi of Sunil from Narender PW1 and devender, PW2. If Narender is the relative of deceased Sunil, how it is possible that he will disclose the real facts about his relative to the complainant after a gap of 12-13 days. This is very unnatural behaviour that a man, who is acquainted with a person who has met with an accident, will wait for such a long period to give information to the person connected with the deceased Sunil. Moreover, in his cross examination he has admitted that he does not have any ticket of Haryana Roadways Bus of that date. Therefore, planting of this witness by the complainant in this case cannot be ruled out.

¶31

Similarly, testimony of Devender (PW2) is not worth credence because in his cross examination, he has also admitted that he has not brought the ticket of that date. None of the aforesaid witnesses could muster the carriage to alight on the way from the bus and take care of Sunil who was known to complainant party. It may be that at the spot of accident, driver may not halt the bus but on the next bus stops, this driver has been halting the bus for taking and dropping the passengers. This fact has also been so admitted by Narender (PW1) in his cross examination as he has stated that on all the important bus stands, bus has been halting. Therefore, when

¶32

Crl. Appeal No.509-MA of 2008

¶33

-4-

¶34

¶35

the bus was halting on the way also, neither Narender (PW1) nor Devender (PW2) reported the matter to the police authorities anywhere that this driver has caused the accident on the way to their relative. Hence, on this ground also, false implication of the accused in the case in hand cannot be ruled out. It is also relevant to mention here that claim petition of the legal heirs of the deceased Sunil has already been dismissed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide judgment dated 28.07.2001 Ex.D1.”

¶36

Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant has not been able to persuade this Court to find any fault with the line of reasoning adopted by the learned Trial Magistrate in exonerating the respondent/accused of the charge.

¶37

In the light of the foregoing discussion, I am clear in my mind that the finding of exoneration recorded by the learned Trial Judge and also the reasoning noticed in support thereof, is in order and does not call for any interference. I have examined the impugned finding on the touch stone of the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in Ramesh Babulal Vs. State of Gurarat, AIR 1996 SC 2035, Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2000 SC 1833 and Main Pal Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2004 SC 2158 for adjudication of a such like controversy.

¶38

In the light of the foregoing discussion, I have no hesitation in holding that the present plea must be invalidated and it so ordered accordingly.

¶39

December 01, 2008 (S.D.ANAND) Pka JUDGE

¶40

Crl. Appeal No.509-MA of 2008

¶41

-5-

¶42

Satish Kumar v. Ishwar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Kumar v. Ishwar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amarjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Manjit Singh Vs Piara Singh etc.

Vijay Kumar and Others Vs State of Punjab

Udmi Ram Vs Sita Ram etc.

Union Territory, Chandigarh Vs Surinder Kumar and Others

Channa Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.