DILA RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Mohali, who has set aside the conviction of the respondent recorded by the trial Court for offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. While deciding the appeal filed by the petitioner, the appellate Court has remanded the case for retrial to the trial Court on the ground that some of the incriminating circumstances and evidence appearing against the petitioner was not put to him while examining him under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

(2.) The petitioner, Dila Ram, is accused of having caused an accident while driving tanker when he while overtaking the scooter at fast speed hit the scooter. The scooterist fell down and received head injury and died at the spot. The driver of the tanker had stopped this vehicle after covering some distance but thereafter ran away. The complainant, who is brother of the deceased could note down the number and identified the driver as well. The petitioner was, accordingly, arrested and prosecuted for offences under Sections 279 and 340-A IPC. The trial Court after recording the evidence of six material witnesses found the petitioner guilty of the charge and sentenced him as well. The petitioner filed appeal against his conviction and sentence.

(3.) The petitioner ofcourse has pleaded his false implication. He has also denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence produced by the prosecution. The appellate Court otherwise did not find much fault but came to conclude that conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner could not be sustained on the ground that while recording the statement of petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the trial Court did not put some incriminating evidence to the petitioner and, thus, did not obtain his explanation on those portion of the evidence. The appellate Court found that the trial Court had put limited part of the prosecution evidence. The Court, accordingly, observed that it was essential to put certain material facts allegedly constituting the commission of offence by the petitioner, which appeared in evidence against him. It is noticed that the trial Court did not even question the petitioner that he was driving the offending vehicle on that particular day or that he was driving the same in a rash and negligent manner. The petitioner was not even questioned if he had overtaken the scooter and that his vehicle hit the scooter driven by the deceased. The appellate Court found that the trial Court had not even put the evidence of occurrence to the petitioner. The petitioner was only confronted with the steps taken by the police during investigation.