High Courts(2003) 10 P&H CK 0085

State of Punjab vs Sukhdev Singh

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 15 October 2003 · Citation: (2004) 1 RCR(Criminal) 360

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.S.Grewal, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Appeal No. 276-DBA of 1990

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 680 words

S.S. Grewal, J.

1.

This appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment and order of acquittal of the respondent passed by Shri G.S. Saran, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Sunam in challan No. 177 dated 19.10.1987 decided on 12.2.1990 registered under Sections 304A/279/338 I.P.C. Police Station Sunam.

2.

The facts of the case, briefly stated are that on 2.10.1987 ASI Ashok Kumar of City Sunam alongwith other police officials were present near truck union, Sunam, where PW Gurdarshan Singh suffered a statement to ASI Ashok Kumar that he is resident of Indra Basti, Sunam and is working in Doordarshan Bhatinda and has come to enjoy the Dussehra holiday. In the morning, he and his father Malkiat Singh, who was working in the office of Zila Parishad as Overser had gone to Sangrur alongwith Balbir Singh son of Mani Ram r/o Indra Basti, Sunam. They both had gone to Sangrur on Motorcycle Rajdoot No. PAS 585 but they had not come back till 5 P.M. and he, in their search, was going to Sangrur and he met them near village Chathe Nakta and then they came back to Sunam and when they approached SunamPatiala road, a truck No. PAS7521 came at a fast speed and the truck driver without giving any horn struck that vehicle with the motor cycle of his father and Balbir Singh fell on the back side from the motorcycle and the truckdriver ran away from the spot. His father Malkiat Singh expired at the spot and Balbir Singh received the injuries. Balbir Singh told him that the driver of the truck was Sukhdev Singh resident of village Mardkhera. Balbir Singh was admitted to hospital and in the meantime Narinder Singh son of Shri Sikender Singh resident of village Chathe Nakta who was working in the Home Guard came on the spot and he left Narinder Singh near the dead body and when he was going to his house, he met the police party, where his statement was recorded. On his statement Ex.PA ASI Ashok Kumar made an endorsement Ex.PW/7A on the basis of which FIR Ex.PW7/B under Section 279/304A was registered. The investigation was conducted by ASI Ashok Kumar, who prepared the rough site plan of the place of occurrence. MLR of injured Balbir Singh was obtained from the hospital. The motorcycle and truck were taken into police possession. Postmortem on the dead body of Malkiat Singh was got conducted from Civil Hospital, Sangrur. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of the investigation, the challan was presented in the Court.

3.

At the commencement of the trial, the accused was charge sheeted under Section 304A I.P.C. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4.

The prosecution examined PW1 Balbir Singh, PW2 Gurdarshana Singh, PW3 Harbant Singh, PW4 Dr. L.C. Bansal, PW5 Majinder Singh, PW6 Dr. S.K. Verma and PW7ASI Ashok Kumar.

5.

Statement of the accused Sukhdev Singh was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All the incriminating evidence appearing against him was put to him. He denied the allegations of the prosecution and stated that PW Balbir Singh was friend of father of PW2 who died in accident. Balbir Singh had ill will against him, therefore, he has implicated him in a false case. No witness was examined in defence by the accused.

6.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

7.

Learned counsel has argued that truck was going on the main road and the Motorcycle came from the right side and hit the truck. Truck driver should have been more conscious (cautions ?) and there was no negligence on the part of the motorcycle driver. When this Court asked the appellant if truck had hit the motor cycle from the side link, the counsel replied that it was motorcycle which hit the truck. In view of this fact, no negligence can be attributed to the truck driver.

8.

In view of the above, the findings arrived at by the trial Court do not call for any interference by this Court. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.