Sansar Singh vs State of U.T., Chandigarh

This is Criminal Revision filed by Sansar Singh-petitioner herein whereby he has challenged the order dt. 23-12-1998 of Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh dismissing his appeal against the order of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh dated 19-7-1995 whereby he was convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- u/s 304A, IPC and to undergo R.I. for three months under S. 279, IPC.

The prosecution case in brief is that on 17-9-89 at about 4-15 p.m. one Surjit Singh was coming on his motor-cycle No. DHY-7523 from Mohali to Chandigarh. Accused Sansar Singh was driving truck No. PBW-2543. He came with his truck from the side of Mataur Barrier driving rashly and negligently on the road dividing Sectors 45 and 46. When he reached the roundabout near the Mataur Barrier, he banged his truck into Surjit Singh. As a result of the impact, Surjit Singh fell on the road. He suffered serious injuries. Injured Surjit Singh was removed to PGI, where he died. Accident was witnessed by Constable Vajinder Singh and one Gurbax Singh case FIR No. 201 was registered at P.S. South, Chandigarh under Ss. 279 and 304-A, IPC. Case was investigated. After investigation, the accused was challaned. Accused was charged under Ss. 279, 304-A, IPC. He pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.

On the conclusion of the trial, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Chandigarh found the charge under S. 279/304A proved against the accused. He accordingly convicted him thereunder vide order dated 19-7-1995. Vide order of the even date, he sentenced him to undergo R.I. for three months under S. 279, IPC. He sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- under S. 304A, IPC. In default of payment of fine, he ordered him to undergo R.I. for three weeks. Sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Sansar Singh went in appeal to the Court of Session. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh dismissed his appeal vide order dated 23-12-98.

Surjit Singh has knocked the door of this Court through this Criminal Revision praying that he has been unjustly convicted by the two Courts below and he be acquitted.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the U.T., Chandigarh.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the doctor who performed postmortem examination on the dead-body has not been examined. In the absence of the examination of the doctor who performed post-mortem examination, on the dead-body, it is difficult to say as to what was the proximate cause of the death of the deceased. In support of his submission, he drew my attention to P.C. Poulose Vs. State of Kerala, wherein it was held that in the absence of the examination of the doctor who performed postmortem examination on the dead body, the cause of death of the deceased will remain unproved. It was submitted that in the absence of the examination of the doctor who performed post-mortem examination on the dead-body, the Court is left in dark as to whether the deceased died of the injuries suffered during the course of accident or he died due to some other cause. He also drew my attention to Suresh Kumar v. State 1998 (3) CCC 52 (Del) where it was held that in the absence of the examination of the doctor as to the nature of injuries, time and cause of death and the nature of injuries, time and cause of death remaining obscure, it cannot be said that the deceased died due to the rash and negligent act of the accused. In this case, injured had not died on the spot. He was removed to hospital and died afterwards. It was not proved on record as to when the deceased died and what was the nature of injuries and cause of his death. It was not proved that the death was caused due to] accident injuries.

Faced with this position, learned Standing Counsel for U.T., Chandigarh submitted that the case should be remanded for re-trial.

Suffice it to say, the accused was put up on trial in the year 1991. He remained in trial before the Magistrate for over four years whereafter he was convicted and sentenced. He remained in appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge for over three years whereafter he was convicted. It would not be conductive to justice that the accused be vexed over and again after eight years.

For the reasons given above, this Criminal revision succeeds and is accepted. Conviction and sentence passed upon the petitioner are set aside and he is acquitted. Fine, if paid, shall be refunded to him.

Petition allowed.