IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 207 JASWINDER SINGH STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: Present: MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) 1. findings of conviction Magistrate, revisionist-accused Jaswinder Singh was convicted under Section the Indian Penal Code, 1860 follows:- Offence(s) under Section 304-A of the IPC 2. learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala vide judgment dated 22.08.2009 The conviction arises out of FIR No.369 dated 23.05.2001 under Sections IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-2348 Date of decision: JASWINDER SINGH Versus PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Mr. Vivek Dahiya, Advocate (Amicus Curiae for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Rana, Sr. DAG, Punjab MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) The instant revision petition is directed against the of conviction recorded by learned Magistrate, Samana, vide judgment dated accused Jaswinder Singh was convicted under Section Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment as Offence(s) under Section Period of sentence imposed A of the IPC RI for 1½ years ` The judgment of the learned JMIC was thereafter upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala vide judgment dated 22.08.2009 The conviction arises out of FIR No.369 dated 23.05.2001 under Sections IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 2348-2009 Date of decision: September 16, 2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondent HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Amicus Curiae) Amit Rana, Sr. DAG, Punjab. The instant revision petition is directed against the concurrent by learned Sub Divisional Judicial vide judgment dated 16.05.2006, whereby the accused Jaswinder Singh was convicted under Section 304-A of and sentenced to undergo imprisonment as Fine imposed Period of sentence in default of payment of fine `1,500/- RI for 2 months JMIC was thereafter upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala vide judgment dated 22.08.2009. The conviction arises out of FIR No.369 dated 23.05.2001 under Sections ...Petitioner ...Respondent concurrent Judicial the A of and sentenced to undergo imprisonment as JMIC was thereafter upheld by the . Jaspreet Kaur 2025.09.18 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR-2348-2009 304-A/279 of the Samana, District Patiala 3. Budh Singh (PW2), son of Sukhdev Singh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), is that on 23.05.20 coming on a bicycle from Village Fatehgarh Channa. As he turned towards his fields, a Mahindra jeep bearing registration No. rashly and negligently at high speed from Bhawanigarh side by Jaswinder Singh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’), struck the bicycle. 4. injuries, resulting in his instantaneous death went out of control, dashed into a (accused) allegedly managed to escape from the spot behind. 5. seized vide separate recovery memos (Ex. plan (Ex.PW out, and the body sent for postmortem. day i.e. 24.05.2001 6. six witnesses: 2009 A/279 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 Samana, District Patiala (Ex.PW6/C). The case of the prosecution, as Budh Singh (PW2), son of Sukhdev Singh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the , is that on 23.05.2001, around 2.00 p.m., the deceased was coming on a bicycle from Village Fatehgarh Channa. As he turned towards a Mahindra jeep bearing registration No. rashly and negligently at high speed from Bhawanigarh side by Jaswinder Singh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’), struck the bicycle. Due to the impact, the deceased fell injuries, resulting in his instantaneous death went out of control, dashed into a kikkar tree and overturned. allegedly managed to escape from the spot Investigation commenced. The jeep and damaged cycle were seized vide separate recovery memos (Ex.PW6/E and PW6/F PW6/G) was prepared, inquest proceedings (Ex. out, and the body sent for postmortem. The accused was ar day i.e. 24.05.2001. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined the following six witnesses:- -2- Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station The case of the prosecution, as noticed in the FIR as lodged by Budh Singh (PW2), son of Sukhdev Singh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 01, around 2.00 p.m., the deceased was coming on a bicycle from Village Fatehgarh Channa. As he turned towards a Mahindra jeep bearing registration No.PB-11H-5904, driven rashly and negligently at high speed from Bhawanigarh side by petitioner Jaswinder Singh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’), struck the bicycle. Due to the impact, the deceased fell and sustained grievous injuries, resulting in his instantaneous death. The jeep, after the collision, tree and overturned. The driver allegedly managed to escape from the spot, leaving the jeep Investigation commenced. The jeep and damaged cycle were PW6/E and PW6/F). Rough site ) was prepared, inquest proceedings (Ex.PW6/H) carried The accused was arrested the next The prosecution, in support of its case, examined the following tation noticed in the FIR as lodged by Budh Singh (PW2), son of Sukhdev Singh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 01, around 2.00 p.m., the deceased was coming on a bicycle from Village Fatehgarh Channa. As he turned towards 5904, driven petitioner Jaswinder Singh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’), struck the bicycle. and sustained grievous The jeep, after the collision, The driver , leaving the jeep Investigation commenced. The jeep and damaged cycle were ). Rough site ) carried rested the next The prosecution, in support of its case, examined the following Jaspreet Kaur 2025.09.18 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR-2348-2009 i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. 7. allegations and pleaded false implication. No defence evidence was led. 8. convicted the accused under Section 304 Section 279 IPC. Patiala was dismissed on 22.08.2009. 9. assailed the conviction of the accused on the following grounds: 2009 PW1 HC Rajinder Singh (Mechanic submitted his report (Ex.PA); PW2 Budh Singh (complainant/eyewitness). He reiterated the version given in the FIR and identified the accused as driver of the jeep; PW3 Gurjant Singh (another eyewitness) corroborated the testimony of PW2 Budh Singh by the accused PW4 Dr. Majit Singh, who conducted postmortem of the deceased and proved report (Ex.PW4/A); PW5 Sham Lal (Junior Assistant, DTO Office) produced record of the driving license of the accused. PW6 HC Chajju Singh (Investigating Officer) plan, recovery memos, and inquest. The accused, examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied all allegations and pleaded false implication. No defence evidence was led. The learned trial Court, upon appreciation of ed the accused under Section 304-A IPC but acquitted him under Section 279 IPC. Appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala was dismissed on 22.08.2009. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the revisionist has assailed the conviction of the accused on the following grounds: -3- Mechanic), who tested the jeep and Singh (complainant/eyewitness). He reiterated the version given in the FIR and identified the accused as driver of PW3 Gurjant Singh (another eyewitness) corroborated the testimony of PW2 Budh Singh qua rash and negligent driving W4 Dr. Majit Singh, who conducted postmortem of the deceased and proved report (Ex.PW4/A); PW5 Sham Lal (Junior Assistant, DTO Office) produced record of the driving license of the accused. u Singh (Investigating Officer) proved FIR, site plan, recovery memos, and inquest. The accused, examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied all allegations and pleaded false implication. No defence evidence was led. The learned trial Court, upon appreciation of evidence, A IPC but acquitted him under Appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, appearing for the revisionist has assailed the conviction of the accused on the following grounds:- ), who tested the jeep and Singh (complainant/eyewitness). He reiterated the version given in the FIR and identified the accused as driver of PW3 Gurjant Singh (another eyewitness) corroborated the rash and negligent driving W4 Dr. Majit Singh, who conducted postmortem of the PW5 Sham Lal (Junior Assistant, DTO Office) produced record proved FIR, site The accused, examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied all evidence, A IPC but acquitted him under Appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, appearing for the revisionist has Jaspreet Kaur 2025.09.18 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR-2348-2009 (I) accused without ascertaining whether he was after collision, impossible for the driver to break loose and fle nor PW3 Gurjant Singh actually saw the driver escaping. Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted to establish the identity of the driver of the jeep. (II) (Ex.PW6/G) suppressed the distance between the spot of accident and the place where the wi between the accident site (Mark nearly two acres, rendering it improbable for them to have witnessed the occurrence. The claim of identifying the driver implausible. (III) learned trial Court driving the jeep. It was urged that in criminal law, the initial burden rests solely on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. (IV) 24.05.2001, outside the police post while alighting from a bus. PW2 Budh Singh happened to be there and allegedly identified him. No Registration 2009 It has been urged that the Courts below erred in convicting the accused without ascertaining whether he was after collision, had overturned upon hitting the impossible for the driver to break loose and fle nor PW3 Gurjant Singh actually saw the driver escaping. Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted to establish the identity of the driver of the jeep. Learned Amicus Curiae further argued that the site plan (Ex.PW6/G) suppressed the distance between the spot of accident and the place where the witnesses were allegedly working. In reality, the distance between the accident site (Mark -A) and position of witnesses (Mark nearly two acres, rendering it improbable for them to have witnessed the occurrence. The claim of identifying the driver Learned Amicus Curiae still further vehemently argued that the learned trial Court wrongly shifted burden on driving the jeep. It was urged that in criminal law, the initial burden rests solely on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It was further argued that the accused was arrested the next day, , outside the police post while alighting from a bus. PW2 Budh Singh happened to be there and allegedly identified him. No Registration -4- It has been urged that the Courts below erred in convicting the accused without ascertaining whether he was indeed the driver. The jeep, had overturned upon hitting the kikkar tree. It was practically impossible for the driver to break loose and flee. Neither PW2 Budh Singh nor PW3 Gurjant Singh actually saw the driver escaping. No Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted to establish the identity of the further argued that the site plan (Ex.PW6/G) suppressed the distance between the spot of accident and the tnesses were allegedly working. In reality, the distance and position of witnesses (Mark-F) was nearly two acres, rendering it improbable for them to have witnessed the occurrence. The claim of identifying the driver (accused) fleeing is still further vehemently argued that the wrongly shifted burden on the accused to prove who was driving the jeep. It was urged that in criminal law, the initial burden rests solely on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. accused was arrested the next day, , outside the police post while alighting from a bus. PW2 Budh Singh happened to be there and allegedly identified him. No Registration It has been urged that the Courts below erred in convicting the the driver. The jeep, tree. It was practically e. Neither PW2 Budh Singh No Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted to establish the identity of the further argued that the site plan (Ex.PW6/G) suppressed the distance between the spot of accident and the tnesses were allegedly working. In reality, the distance was nearly two acres, rendering it improbable for them to have witnessed the cused) fleeing is still further vehemently argued that the to prove who was driving the jeep. It was urged that in criminal law, the initial burden rests accused was arrested the next day, , outside the police post while alighting from a bus. PW2 Budh Jaspreet Kaur 2025.09.18 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR-2348-2009 Certificate (RC) examined to link (V) overturned after colliding with the driver (accused) could have escaped with not even a scratch on his Thus, prosecution miserably failed to prove nexus between accused and the offending vehicle. 10. conviction. It was argued that enough cogent evidence had been led by the prosecution, and both Courts below, after rightly appreciating the evidence, had recorded findings of conviction against the revisionist submitted that since PW2 Budh Singh had identified the accused on the very next day of the accident, no TIP was necessary. The findings, being well-reasoned, did not warrant any interference. 11. evidence on record. 12. A. 2009 Certificate (RC) of the jeep was produced, nor any independent witness examined to link the accused to the vehicle involved in the accident. It was lastly argued that the manner in which the overturned after colliding with the kikkar tree driver (accused) could have escaped with not even a scratch on his Thus, prosecution miserably failed to prove nexus between accused and the offending vehicle. Per contra, learned State counsel conviction. It was argued that enough cogent evidence had been led by the prosecution, and both Courts below, after rightly appreciating the evidence, had recorded findings of conviction against the revisionist ed that since PW2 Budh Singh had identified the accused on the very of the accident, no TIP was necessary. The findings, being reasoned, did not warrant any interference. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused th evidence on record. The points which arise for the determination of this Court are: Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was the driver of the jeep involved in the accident; -5- of the jeep was produced, nor any independent witness the accused to the vehicle involved in the accident. It was lastly argued that the manner in which the jeep had tree, it was highly unlikely that the driver (accused) could have escaped with not even a scratch on his person. Thus, prosecution miserably failed to prove nexus between accused and the , learned State counsel vehemently supported the conviction. It was argued that enough cogent evidence had been led by the prosecution, and both Courts below, after rightly appreciating the evidence, had recorded findings of conviction against the revisionist. It was also ed that since PW2 Budh Singh had identified the accused on the very of the accident, no TIP was necessary. The findings, being reasoned, did not warrant any interference. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the The points which arise for the determination of this Court are:- has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was the driver of the jeep involved in the of the jeep was produced, nor any independent witness had , it was highly unlikely that the person. Thus, prosecution miserably failed to prove nexus between accused and the vehemently supported the conviction. It was argued that enough cogent evidence had been led by the prosecution, and both Courts below, after rightly appreciating the evidence, It was also ed that since PW2 Budh Singh had identified the accused on the very of the accident, no TIP was necessary. The findings, being e has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was the driver of the jeep involved in the Jaspreet Kaur 2025.09.18 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR-2348-2009 B. 13. Section 304-A IPC, driving the offending vehicle; he was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, and as a result of his rash and negligent driving, it caused the death of the deceased. Proof of the identity fundamental. 14. evidence, and cannot be presumed merely accident. 15. the accused as driver of the jeep:  2009 Whether in the absence of a TIP, and in view of contradictions in the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the conviction under Section 304-A IPC can be sustained. It is a settled principle that in order to sustain A IPC, the prosecution was bound to prove driving the offending vehicle; he was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, and as a result of his rash and negligent driving, it caused the death of the deceased. Proof of the identity fundamental. The rashness and negligence must be proved by cogent evidence, and cannot be presumed merely In the instant case, serious doubts arise used as driver of the jeep:- The jeep after colliding with the bicycle of the deceased, struck a tree and overturned. The claim that the driver managed to escape is not corroborated by any cogent or independent evidence. Neither PW2 Bush Singh nor PW3 Gurjant Singh categorically deposed to having seen the ac escaping from the vehicle. Their assertion of identification appears to be an afterthought. -6- Whether in the absence of a TIP, and in view of contradictions the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the conviction A IPC can be sustained. It is a settled principle that in order to sustain conviction under was bound to prove that the accused was driving the offending vehicle; he was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, and as a result of his rash and negligent driving, it caused the death of the deceased. Proof of the identity of the driver is, therefore, The rashness and negligence must be proved by cogent evidence, and cannot be presumed merely from the occurrence of an In the instant case, serious doubts arise regarding the identity of with the bicycle of the deceased, struck a tree and overturned. The claim that the driver managed to escape is not corroborated by any cogent or independent evidence. Neither PW2 Bush Singh nor PW3 Gurjant Singh to having seen the accused driving or escaping from the vehicle. Their assertion of identification Whether in the absence of a TIP, and in view of contradictions the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the conviction conviction under that the accused was driving the offending vehicle; he was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, and as a result of his rash and negligent driving, it caused of the driver is, therefore, The rashness and negligence must be proved by cogent occurrence of an regarding the identity of with the bicycle of the deceased, struck a tree and overturned. The claim that the driver managed to escape is not corroborated by any cogent or independent evidence. Neither PW2 Bush Singh nor PW3 Gurjant Singh cused driving or escaping from the vehicle. Their assertion of identification Jaspreet Kaur 2025.09.18 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR-2348-2009   16. eyewitness testimony improbable. 17. accused was alleged spotted the very next day by PW2 Budh Singh at the 2009 Significantly, no TIP was held. In a case where accused was allegedly unknown to the witnesses prior to occurrence, omission to conduct TIP is a material lapse. the driver, much less of even his basic physical features, was given by either the complaina registering the FIR, nor by PW3 Gurjant Singh while getting his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. circumstances, it does not appeal to prudence as to how Budh Singh was able to identify the petitioner while ali from a bus right in front of the police station, on the following day of the accident. Furthermore, the site plan (Ex.PW6/G) is conspicuously silent on the actual distance between the place of occurrence and the position of the witnesses at the rele evidence, it emerges that the witnesses were acres away, making it highly doubtful whether they could have clearly identified the driver of the jeep. The Courts ought to be cautioned against reliance on doubtful eyewitness testimony when the circumstances rendered witnessing The circumstances of arrest accused was alleged spotted the very next day by PW2 Budh Singh at the -7- no TIP was held. In a case where accused was allegedly unknown to the witnesses prior to occurrence, is a material lapse. No description of the driver, much less of even his basic physical features, was given by either the complainant PW2 Budh Singh while registering the FIR, nor by PW3 Gurjant Singh while getting his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In the it does not appeal to prudence as to how PW2 Budh Singh was able to identify the petitioner while alighting from a bus right in front of the police station, on the following Furthermore, the site plan (Ex.PW6/G) is conspicuously silent on the actual distance between the place of occurrence and the position of the witnesses at the relevant time. From the evidence, it emerges that the witnesses were working about two , making it highly doubtful whether they could have the driver of the jeep. to be cautioned against reliance on doubtful when the circumstances rendered witnessing The circumstances of arrest are also most unnatural. The accused was alleged spotted the very next day by PW2 Budh Singh at the no TIP was held. In a case where accused was allegedly unknown to the witnesses prior to occurrence, No description of the driver, much less of even his basic physical features, was nt PW2 Budh Singh while registering the FIR, nor by PW3 Gurjant Singh while getting his In the PW2 ghting from a bus right in front of the police station, on the following Furthermore, the site plan (Ex.PW6/G) is conspicuously silent on the actual distance between the place of occurrence and the vant time. From the working about two , making it highly doubtful whether they could have to be cautioned against reliance on doubtful when the circumstances rendered witnessing are also most unnatural. The Jaspreet Kaur 2025.09.18 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR-2348-2009 police post wh this identification. 18. produced to link ownership or possession to the accused. circumstances remains incomplete. 19. as driver of the offending vehicle beyond reasonable doubt cannot be sustained on conjectures. 20. the prosecution. on the accused to prove innocence. The presumption of innocence is a fundamental various judicial pronouncements that if two views are reasonably possible, one pointing to guilt and the other to innocence, the latter 21. credibility of eyewitnesses, the implausibility of the escape theory and that too, without the accused sustaining any present one, serious doubt. The accused is, therefore, entitled to the In view of the been able to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt. identity of the accused as driver of the offending jeep is not established. 2009 police post while alighting from a bus. No independent witness supported this identification. Importantly, no Registration Certificate (RC) produced to link ownership or possession to the accused. circumstances remains incomplete. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove the identity of the accused as driver of the offending vehicle beyond reasonable doubt cannot be sustained on conjectures. It needs to be reiterated that the burden of proof always rests on the prosecution. Until the prosecution discharges its burden on the accused to prove innocence. The presumption of innocence is a fundamental tenet of criminal law. It has been settled time and again through various judicial pronouncements that if two views are reasonably possible, one pointing to guilt and the other to innocence, the latter Applying these principles, the omission of a TIP, the doubtful edibility of eyewitnesses, the implausibility of the escape theory and that too, without the accused sustaining any injury in a serious accident like the present one, and the suspicious circumstances of arrest serious doubt. The accused is, therefore, entitled to the In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt. ty of the accused as driver of the offending jeep is not established. -8- No independent witness supported Importantly, no Registration Certificate (RC) of the jeep was produced to link ownership or possession to the accused. The chain of Thus, the prosecution failed to prove the identity of the accused as driver of the offending vehicle beyond reasonable doubt. Conviction It needs to be reiterated that the burden of proof always rests on Until the prosecution discharges its burden, no duty is cast on the accused to prove innocence. The presumption of innocence is a been settled time and again through various judicial pronouncements that if two views are reasonably possible, one pointing to guilt and the other to innocence, the latter must prevail. Applying these principles, the omission of a TIP, the doubtful edibility of eyewitnesses, the implausibility of the escape theory and that injury in a serious accident like the and the suspicious circumstances of arrest, together create serious doubt. The accused is, therefore, entitled to the benefit of such doubt. above discussion, this Court finds that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt. The ty of the accused as driver of the offending jeep is not established. No independent witness supported of the jeep was The chain of Thus, the prosecution failed to prove the identity of the accused . Conviction It needs to be reiterated that the burden of proof always rests on , no duty is cast on the accused to prove innocence. The presumption of innocence is a been settled time and again through various judicial pronouncements that if two views are reasonably possible, Applying these principles, the omission of a TIP, the doubtful edibility of eyewitnesses, the implausibility of the escape theory and that injury in a serious accident like the together create benefit of such doubt. above discussion, this Court finds that the prosecution has not The Jaspreet Kaur 2025.09.18 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR-2348-2009 Accordingly, the conviction recorded by the Courts below under Section 304-A IPC cannot be sustained. 22. of conviction and sentence dated The accused against him under Section 304 September 16 Jaspreet Kaur 2009 Accordingly, the conviction recorded by the Courts below under Section cannot be sustained. The instant revision petition is accordingly a of conviction and sentence dated 16.05.2006 and 22.08.2009 are set aside. The accused-petitioner Jaswinder Singh is acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 304-A of the IPC. September 16, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable -9- Accordingly, the conviction recorded by the Courts below under Section The instant revision petition is accordingly allowed. Judgments 16.05.2006 and 22.08.2009 are set aside. Jaswinder Singh is acquitted of the charge framed (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No Accordingly, the conviction recorded by the Courts below under Section s 16.05.2006 and 22.08.2009 are set aside. Jaswinder Singh is acquitted of the charge framed Jaspreet Kaur 2025.09.18 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh