SATPAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SATPAL petition was convicted for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of three months for the offence under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo R.I. for a period of one year for the offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal against he said judgment of conviction and order of sentence was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra and hence this revision petition.

(2.) THE defence of the petitioner is that he was not driving the truck in question at the relevant time. It may be stated that according to the case of the prosecution the deceased was going in a tonga and the truck involved in the accident and which was driven in rash and negligent manner dashed against it. The tonga was going on its correct side while the truck went on the wrong side and dashed against the tonga, as a result of which, one person who was sitting in the said tonga received fatal injuries and died.

(3.) THIS then takes me to the question of identification of the petitioner as a driver of the truck by the eye-witnesses. The lower appellate Court has observed that Bhoja Ram, PW-2, Moti Ram PW-4, Mehma Ram PW-5 and Sita Ram (and not Satpal) PW-11 are the eye-witnesses. Sita Ram PW-11 has stated that on the day of his deposition, he could not recognise the driver. Even though some of the eye-witnesses have identified the petitioner as the driver of the truck in the Court, it is not in the evidence that they were knowing the petitioner before the accident and when this is the position, the absence of identification parade assumes importance in this case. It has to be seen that according to the case of the prosecution, the driver of the truck had run away from the spot. That means he was not arrested at the spot by the police and it is equally true that he was not taken to the police station by any of the witnesses from the spot of the accident. This being so only identifying the petitioner is the Court will not serve the purpose of the prosecution. Asking for superdari of the registration certificate of the truck much subsequent to the date of the accident does not lead to any inference which can be beyond doubt that the petitioner was driving the truck.