PARSHOTAM DUTT Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Parshotam Dutt son of Dwasi Ram was tried in case FIR No. 125 dated 11.11.1990, registered at Police Station Dasuya, under Section 304-A, 279 and 427 IPC. He was put to trial and the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dasuya, convicted for offence under Section 304-A IPC and sentenced accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

(2.) Aggrieved against the order of conviction and sentence, petitioner filed an appeal. Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, found no merit in the appeal and the same was dismissed on 20.11.1996 Briefly stated, case of prosecution is that on 11.11.1990, petitioner was a driver of truck bearing No. JK-02-6386. The truck driven by the petitioner hit a scooter bearing No. MP-04-C-2567. Due to accident, Paramveer Singh, driver of scooter and Balwinder Singh, pillion rider, suffered injuries and became unconscious. They were taken to hospital where they were declared dead by the doctor. This occurrence was witnessed by Boor Singh, father of Paramveer Singh. He stated that on that day, he along with his son Paramveer Singh, his wife Kulwinder Kaur, his daughter Surinder Kaur, and her husband Balwinder Singh had gone to village Nangal Lobana to perform engagement ceremony of his younger daughter. At about 4.00 P.M., he along with Surinder Kaur and Kulwinder Kaur was coming in a Maruti Car which was driven by Manjit Singh, whereas his son Paramveer Singh and Balwinder Singh were coming on a scooter ahead of Maruti car when the accident took place. On basis of the FIR lodged by Boor Singh, case was investigated and challan was submitted. Thereafter, charge was framed against the petitioner for offence under Section 304- A IPC on the ground that due to rash and negligent driving, death of two persons had taken place.

(3.) Prosecution, in support of its case, examined seven witnesses. PW.3 Boor Singh, complainant, and PW.4 Manjit Singh, driver of the Maruti car, appeared as eye witnesses. Mr. C.L.Sharma, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, has very fairly stated that two Courts below have appreciated the evidence and have returned a finding that the prosecution case aspire confidence. But according to Mr. Sharma two Courts below have ignored the fact that witnesses had stated that the accused was not known to them; the accident had taken place on the spur of moment and petitioner belong to Kathua, falling within the State of Jammu & Kashmir. It has been admitted by the witnesses that they had no acquaintances with the accused. Prosecution had not held any identification parade and, therefore, prosecution had miserably failed to prove the identity of the accused as driver of the offending truck. To fortify this submission, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar 1994(3) Recent Criminal Reports 1. Counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance upon Amit Singh Bhikamsingh Thakur (SC) 2007(1) Recent Criminal Reports 618 to state that identification of the accused in the Court for the first time is insignificant and should not be relied upon to hold accused guilty. Two Courts below have taken into consideration the statement made by accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he stated that he was present at the spot not as a driver of the truck but as a cleaner. According to the accused, driver of the truck was Vaishno Dutt. Taking his statement into consideration, two Courts below held that the same corroborated the testimony of two witnesses and held petitioner to be guilty. Once accused had admitted his presence at the spot, the onus upon the prosecution to establish identity of the accused cannot be strictly construed. Furthermore, two Courts below have held that the testimony of eye witnesses aspire confidence.