Jagat Ram v. State of Punjab

IN T

Whether only op Pronounced or t judgment Jagat Ram (sinc State of Punjab

CORAM : HON

Present: Mr

Mr MANDEEP PA

1.

The against the judg Judge, Rupnana

22.11.2004 pass Anandpur Sahib 337, 338 and 42 guilty for the co of the Indian Pe Under Section

Section 279 IPC Section 337 IPC Section 338 IPC THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

CR

Re

Pro

Up perative part of the judgment is the full judgment is pronounced:

ce deceased) through LR VERSUS

N'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDE r. Ramneek Vasudeva, Advocate r. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG Punjab -.- ANNU J. (Oral) e present criminal revision has gment dated 22.10.2007 passed agar and judgment of convictio sed by the Court of the learned b, in FIR No.6 dated 25.01.19 27 IPC at Police Station Nanga ommission of offences punishabl nal Code and was sentenced as f Imprisonment awarded F C R.I. for 06 months R C R.I for 06 months R C R.I for 01 year R JAB AND HARYANA ARH RR-2167-2007 (O&M) served on:-04.02.2026 onounced on:- 10.02.2026 ploaded on:-13.02.2026 :

operative part/f

....Petitioner ....Respondent EEP PANNU for the petitioner. b. s been preferred by the petition by the learned Additional Sessi on and the order of sentence da d Sub Division Judicial Magistr 999, registered under Sections 2 al, whereby the petitioner was h le under Sections 279, 337, 338 I follows: Fine Imprisonment default of pay of fine Rs.500/- S.I. for 15 days Rs.500/- S.I. for 15 days Rs.1000/- S.I. for 15 days

/full ner, ons ated ate, 279, held IPC in yment s s s

It was als

2.

As complainant Am No. PBW-6964 Nangal Dam, a Himachal Prade side at a high sp impact, both the legs of Uma De simple injuries. Nangal, from w to Government on 24.01.1999, which the FIR w

3.

Aft accused under Cr.P.C. were su guilty and claim

4.

In PW-1 Uma De stated that she d only through po the petitioner d driving. o ordered that all the sentences s per the prosecution case, on 2 mar Nath along with his wife U 4 towards Kishanpur. It was a a bus bearing No. HP-53-021 esh, allegedly driven by the accu peed and hit the scooter from beh e occupants fell down and the f evi, causing grievous injuries, wh Initially, the injured Uma De where she was referred to NFL, N Hospital, Sector-32, Chandigarh and the statement of Amar Nath was registered with a delay of ab ter completion of investigation, t Sections 279, 337, 338 and 42 upplied, and charges were framed med trial. order to prove its case, the pro evi (injured) deposed regarding did not see the driver of the bus a olice officials. PW-3 Amar Nath, driving the bus and attributed t shall run concurrently.

4.01.1999 at about 11:30 AM, Uma Devi was travelling on scoo alleged that near the Police P 11, belonging to Baijnath Dep used Jagat Ram, came from the U hind. It was alleged that due to front wheel of the bus ran over hile Amar Nath allegedly sustain evi was taken to BBMB Hospi Naya Nangal and thereafter shif h. A ruqa was sent by the hosp h was recorded on 25.01.1999, a out 30 hours. the police filed a challan against 27 IPC. Copies under Section 2 d, to which the accused pleaded osecution examined ten witness g the occurrence but categorica and came to know about his iden , complainant, claimed to have s the accident to rash and neglig

oter ost, pot, Una ned ital, fted pital fter not ses. ally ntity een

5.

The of injuries, mec Investigating O Uma Devi sust sustained simple

6.

Up under Section 3 false implicatio beyond reasonab

7.

The identity of the d After evaluating that the delay in priority was giv

8.

Th identify the driv the identity of t negligent drivin spot, medical ev

9.

Con Sections 279, 33 established the g

10.

Fee of sentence dat Sessions Judge e prosecution also examined me chanical experts to prove the c fficer to prove the investigation tained both simple and grievo e injuries. on closure of prosecution evide 13 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherei n, and asserted that the prosec ble doubt. No defence evidence w e Learned Trial Court framed po driver, (ii) rashness and neglige g the oral and documentary evid n registration of FIR was satisfac en to medical treatment of the in he Learned Trial Court further ver, the testimony of PW-3 Am the petitioner as the driver of th ng stood proved on the basis of o vidence, and mechanical inspecti nsequently, the Learned Trial C 37, 338 and 427 IPC, holding th guilt of the petitioner beyond rea eling aggrieved by the aforesaid ted 22.11.2004, accused prefer , Rupnagar, who after re-appr edical witnesses to prove the nat condition of the vehicles, and n. Medical evidence indicated t ous injuries, whereas Amar N ence, the statement of the petitio in he denied all allegations, plead cution had failed to prove its c was led. oints for determination regarding ence, and (iii) causation of injur dence, the Learned Trial Court h ctorily explained on the ground t njured. held that although PW-1 did mar Nath was sufficient to establ he offending bus, and that rash a cular testimony, photographs of ion reports. Court convicted the petitioner un hat the prosecution had successfu asonable doubt. d judgment of conviction and or rred an appeal before the learn reciating the evidence on reco

ture Nath oner ded case g (i) ries. held not lish and f the nder ully rder ned ord,

upheld the judg dismissed the ap

11.

Ag preferred the p petitioner-Jagat Anil Kumar son duly supported b

12.

Con Anil Kumar son pursue the pres Vasudeva, Adv representative – make necessary

13.

Lea conviction and o on record and ar by the learned sustainable in th

14.

Lea squarely upon deceased) was d relevant time. It however, the co driving was rash provisions of th gment of conviction and order ppeal vide judgment dated 22.10 grieved by the judgments of b present revision petition. It is t Ram expired during the penden n of Jagat Ram had filed an ap by his affidavit and death certific nsequently, the application bea n of the deceased petitioner, is sent revision on behalf of his ocate has filed his power of – Anil Kumar s/o Jagat Ram (sinc addition/correct in the memo of arned counsel for the petitione order of sentence are illegal, erro re liable to be set aside. It was s trial Court are based on surm he eyes of law. arned counsel for the petitioner the prosecution to prove that driving the offending vehicle in t is not disputed that the petition ore issue involved in the prese h and negligent so as to attract c he IPC. It is argued that the pr r of sentence of the accused a

0.2007. both the Courts below the accu s pertinent to mention here t ncy of the present revision petiti pplication bearing CRM-9009-20 cate of Jagat Ram. aring No.CRM-9009-2025 filed allowed to the extent that he s deceased father. Mr. Ramn f attorney on behalf of the le ce deceased). Registry is directed f parties. er contended that the judgment oneous and contrary to the evide submitted that the findings record mises and conjectures and are has contended that the burden w t the petitioner Jagat Ram (si a rash and negligent manner at ner was driving the bus in questi ent case is whether the manner criminal liability under the relev rosecution has miserably failed

and used ion. by can eek egal d to t of nce ded not was nce ion, r of vant

discharge this b case, the bus wa struck the scoot occupants of th backside prior to the bus was be inferential and o is contended tha bus before the a safely relied up collision from b absence of coge

15.

On prosecution has driver of the bu deceased) was d categorically de bus at a high sp scooter from be material witness clearly establish counsel submits in its proper per which do not s revision. burden. Learned counsel submits as being driven on the correct sid ter from behind. It has further he scooter that they did not s o the impact. In such circumstan eing driven in a rash and neg opinion-based statement, unsupp at when the witnesses themselve accident, their testimony regardin pon to sustain a conviction. It i behind does not ipso facto estab ent and reliable evidence. n the other hand, learned Sta s been able to prove on record us. It is submitted that there is driving the bus at the relevant tim eposed in their examination-in-ch peed and in a rash and negligent ehind. It is, therefore, contende ses, duly supported by the med hes the guilt of the accused beyo s that both the Courts below hav rspective and have recorded we suffer from any illegality or pe s that as per the prosecution's o de of the road, i.e. the left side, a come in the testimony of both see the bus approaching from nces, their subsequent assertion t gligent manner is nothing but ported by any direct observation es admit that they had not seen ng the manner of driving cannot s thus argued that mere factum blish rashness or negligence in ate counsel has argued that the rash and negligent act of no dispute that Jagat Ram (si me. The prosecution witnesses h hief that the driver was driving manner and that the bus struck ed that the ocular testimony of dical and other evidence on reco ond reasonable doubt. Learned St ve rightly appreciated the evide ell-reasoned findings of convicti rversity warranting interference

own and an n. It t be m of nce have ord, tate nce ion,

I h counsel at leng evidence on reco

17.

Up finds that the rashness and ne material prosec have categorica kilometers per h the witnesses ad their subsequen manner is clearl direct or objecti they were riding was also being presumption of the bus is stated rashness or neg regarding the sp brakes by the sc no corroborative to substantiate negligence has hindsight opinio have heard learned counsel for th and have carefully gone thr ord and the submissions advance on a re-appreciation of the ent prosecution has failed to esta egligence against the appellant b ution witnesses, who were the ally deposed that they were m hour and that they did not see th dmit that they had no occasion t nt assertion that the bus was be ly an inferential and opinion-ba ive observation. Significantly, th g on the left side of the road, wh driven on the correct side of negligent lane usage on the par d to have struck the scooter from ligence can be drawn, particula peed of the bus, violation of t cooter, road conditions, or the p e material such as skid marks, or the allegation of negligent dr to be gross and culpable, and n ons. r the appellant and learned St rough the impugned judgment, ed. tire evidence on record, this Co ablish the essential ingredients beyond reasonable doubt. Both emselves travelling on the scoo moving at a speed of about 35– e bus prior to the occurrence. O to notice the bus before the imp ing driven in a rash and neglig ased statement, unsupported by a he witnesses have further stated t hich necessarily implies that the f the road, thereby ruling out a rt of the appellant. Merely beca m behind, no automatic inference arly in the absence of any evide traffic rules, sudden application prevailing traffic situation. There r independent eyewitness testimo driving. In criminal jurispruden not merely based on conjectures

tate ourt of oter, –40 nce act, gent any bus any ause e of nce n of e is ony nce,

In prosecution ver doubt. Consequ be sustained, an

19.

Acc judgments date Rupnagar and d Magistrate, Ana under Sections 2 aside. The petiti against him by e

February 10, 20 tripti

Whethe

Whethe view of these material co rsion becomes doubtful, entitlin ently, the finding of guilt record nd the petitioner is entitled to acq cordingly, the present criminal d 22.10.2007 passed by the le dated 22.11.2004 passed by th andpur Sahib, arising out of FIR 279, 337, 338 and 427 IPC at Po ioner Jagat Ram (since deceased extending the benefit of doubt.

(M

er speaking/non-speaking : Speak er reportable

: Yes/N ontradictions and omissions, ng the petitioner to the benefit ded by the learned trial court can quittal. revision petition is allowed. T earned Additional Sessions Jud he learned Sub Divisional Judi R No. 6 dated 25.01.1999 registe olice Station Nangal, are hereby d) is acquitted of the charges fram

MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE king

t of nnot The dge, cial ered y set