GURSHARANJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order passed by Sessions Judge, Patiala on 12.8.2066, whereby charges under Sections 304/337/338/427 IPC have been framed against him.

(2.) AS per the FIR, on 22.1.2006 at about 5.00 p.m., Gurcharan Singh- complainant and Lakhvir Singh were talking in front of the spare parts shop of the latter situated on Jakhal Road, Patran. At that time, Mehal Singh Patwari was going from Patran to his village on a scooter bearing registration No. PB-11-M-5671 at a slow speed on the proper side of the road. In the meantime, one Tata Safari vehicle bearing registration No. HR-24-F-7153 came from the side of Moonak at a very high speed and being driven in a zig-zag manner. The driver of the said Tata Safari appeared to be under the influence of alcohol. The said driver dashed his vehicle against the scooter of Mehal Singh Patwari and dragged him along with his scooter upto 15-20 karams. The complainant and Lakhvir Singh rushed towards that place so as to take care of the victim. However, on account of the injuries received on his head, forehead, legs and other parts of the body, the victim died at the spot. The driver of the Tata Safari also stopped the vehicle due to obstruction caused by the scooter. However, when the complainant and Lakhvir Singh were looking after the victim, the driver of the said vehicle, while walking abnormally, ran away. On enquiry from the persons, who had gathered there, it was learnt that it was the present petitioner, who was driving the vehicle and was coming from Garg Place, Moonak Road, Patran after attending a marriage function there. In the meantime, Balbir Kumar, a resident of Patran, reached there and told the complainant that the aforementioned Tata Safari also hit against bicycle of his maternal uncle's son Rakesh Kumar near a sheller on Moonak Road, Patran. On the basis of the aforementioned statement of Gurcharan Singh, FIR No. 14 dated 22.1.2006 was registered in Police Station, Pataran under Sections 304/337/338/427 IPC.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the facts and circumstances of the case, if taken as such, offence under Section 304-A IPC was made out and the petitioner could not be charged for an offence under Section 304 IPC as it was, at the most, a case of rash and negligent driving. There was no intention to kill on the part of the petitioner. It could not be inferred from the fact that the petitioner was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and thus liable to be charged for an offence under Section 304 IPC. For such an offence, the prosecution was required to establish a case of extreme negligence and rashness, which was not available on the material placed before the trial Court.