Revision against conviction in rash and negligent driving case. Court rejected argument that petitioner lacked prior namging in FIR, finding court identification and extra-judicial confession sufficient for identity.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Criminal Revision No.2089 of 2002 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Criminal Revision No.2089 of 2002
Date of Decision: 16 - 4 – 2009
Sukhdev Singh
.....Petitioner
v.
State of Punjab .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Present: Mr.P.S.Brar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Mehardeep Singh, AAG, Punjab.
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
The present revision petition has been preferred by Sukhdev Singh who was convicted by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot vide his judgment and order dated 27.4.2002. Appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed.
Petitioner was a driver of truck No. PB-04-2122. The case of prosecution is that due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, Sukhwinder Singh, Sukhchain Singh and Rana lost their lives. Two Courts below have placed reliance upon testimonies of PW-10 Lakhwinder Singh, PW-11 Buta Singh eye-witnesses along with testimony of PW-15 Tej Vir Singh before whom confessional statement was made by the petitioner. A
Criminal Revision No.2089 of 2002 [2]
third eye witness PW-12 Devinder Singh has not supported the prosecution case.
Mr.P.S.Brar appearing before me has argued that in the present case petitioner was not named in the FIR. Mr.Brar has also read the testimony of PW-4 Harpal Singh. PW-4 Harpal Singh had stated that truck was driven by Sukhdev Singh who was present in Court. In crossexamination, he stated that Sukhdev Singh accused was not known to him earlier. His name was given to him by the police. PW-6 Kala Singh also stated that truck driver ran away from the spot and name of the driver was not known to him.
Before these contentions could be appreciated, it was put to counsel for the petitioner that petitioner had made an extra judicial confession to one Tej Vir Singh and in the testimony of Tej Vir Singh name of the petitioner had surfaced. In the present case, truck was left at the spot. Therefore, it can be safely said that police was carrying on the investigation to find the driver of the truck and the petitioner had come forward and made extra judicial confession before Tej Vir Singh who had produced the petitioner before the police. Therefore, after extra judicial confession was made, name and particulars of the petitioner were known. In this context identity of the petitioner in Court assume importance. It has been held by the Courts that identification in Court is a substantive piece of evidence and test identification is to be used for corroboration. The trial Court held that there is no enmity between accused-petitioner and Tej Vir Singh. No argument was raised before the Courts below to impeach the credibility of the eye witnesses. Extra judicial confession alone is not only sufficient, but can also be used to corroborate identity of accused established in the Court.
Criminal Revision No.2089 of 2002 [3]
Hence, there is no patent illegality or infirmity in the judgments passed by the two Courts below. Hence, there is no merit in the present revision petition and the same is dismissed.
( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) April 16, 2009. JUDGE
RC
Sukhdev Singh
State of Punjab
Kanwalsingh Ahluwalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
