Sukhbir Kaur vs Sant Singh

Uma Nath Singh, J.—This revision petition filed by complainant against judgment of acquittal recorded on 12.9.2002 by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khanna, under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC, is barred by limitation having inordinate delay of 575 days. The explanation given for delay in filing the revision, on reproduction, read as under:-

That the impugned order was passed on 12.9.2002 vide which the accused-respondent was acquitted. The State of Punjab had filed an appeal challenging the impugned order and had applied for leave to file the criminal appeal against acquittal vide Cr.Misc.No.47 MA of 2003 titled as State of Punjab v. Sant Singh. However, the petitioner could not come to know about the status of the appeal filed by the State. The petitioner moved an application to the Registrar of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh dated 19.3.2004 to enquire about the status of the appeal filed by the State. The petitioner received a letter dated 18.5.2004 from the office of Registrar along with the copy of the order that the appeal stands dismissed on 11.(sic) 2003 and that the leave has been declined by the Hon''ble High Court.

That the petitioner came to know about the status of the petition filed by the State on 16.5.2004 and thereafter the petitioner filed an application for the certified copy of the order on 16.6.2004 which was prepared on 5.7.2004. The petitioner-applicant received copy of the order and engaged the counsel in the High Court to file revision petition and appeal was filed thereafter on 26.7.2004 without any further delay.

Thus, the delay has not been properly explained and once the appeal by State against judgment of learned Magistrate was dismissed on merits, this revision, having been filed after inordinate delay, does not deserve consideration. That apart in the appreciation of evidence done by Lower Court, there does not appear to be any glaring defect in the procedure or a manifest error on point of law leading to miscarriage of justice. The Court has not excluded relevant evidence or placed reliance on inadmissible evidence or over-looked material evidence. Para No. 10 being the relevant portion of the impugned judgment containing appreciation of evidence, on reproduction, read as under:-

Still, prosecution has miserably failed to establish the identity of the accused. It has to be seen that as per prosecution version, accused had fled away from the spot. PW2 Mahesh Kumar and PW3 Amrit Pal clearly stated during the course of their cross-examination that they did not know the driver of the bus before the accident. It is also admitted fact by the prosecution that no identification was got conducted by the prosecution from the eye witnesses. Prosecution also did not disclose as to how the investigating agency came to know the name of the accused. Under these circumstances, absence of identification parade assumes importance in this case. Therefore, identifying the accused for the first time in the Court will not serve the purpose of the prosecution. Even PW2 stated during the course of his cross-examination that he came to know the name of the driver on the same day from Adda Incharge at New Bus stand, Khanna, whereas, PW3 stated the name of the driver of the bus was told to him by ASI of Railway Road. He also stated that he had never seen the accused driving the bus prior to the day of occurrence and after the day of accident. Identification of the accused by these witnesses in the court was of no consequence. Thus, implicit reliance cannot be placed on the statements of both the eye witnesses of the occurrence. For my this view, I find support from the citation State of Punjab v. Surinder Singh, 1992 (1) Chandigarh Criminal Cases 1 of Hon''ble Punjab & Haryana High Court.

Under the circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the order of acquittal inasmuch as, from the prosecution evidence, the identity of the driver of the bus itself was not established nor any effort was made to conduct identification parade. Further, the prosecution has also not given any explanation as to how investigating agency came to know the name of the accused. That apart, PW3 has also mentioned that he had not seen the accused driving the bus prior to the occurrence and thereafter and he was told the name of the accused by the one ASI of Railway Road, so is the case with PW2, who also gathered information about the driver from the Adda Incharge of New Bus Stand, Khanna. That apart, the Court has found material contradictions in the statements of these witnesses.

Hence the revision is dismissed on the ground of delay and merit.