Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhdev Singh vs State Of Punjab on 19 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(210) CRRR-3014-2010
Decided on: 19.03.2026
Sukhdev Singh ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab .....Respondent
CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI
Present:- Mr.Karan
Karan Sirohi, Advocate, for
Mr.Nakul Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Kuljeet Singh,, Addl.A.G., Punjab.
Ramesh Chander Dimri J. :
1. This judgment shall dispose of a Criminal Revision
Petition filed against the judgment dated 27.07.20
27.07.2010 passed by theLearned Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib (for brevity, “Appellate
Court”) by which an appeal filed by the petitioner/accused
/accused (forbrevity, “accused”) against the judgment of conviction
ion dated04.06.2009 and an order of sentence of that very date,, passed by
Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib, arising out of an
FIR No.50
50 dated 23.06.2002 under Section
Sections 279, 338, 427 & 304A ofthe
he Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, ‘1860 Code’), registered atPolice Station Khamanon, was dismissed.
2. As per the prosecution case
case, on 23.06.2002, PW-9 ASI
Rajwant Singh,
Singh with other police officials
officials, was present in the area of
Village Sanghol falling in territorial jurisdiction of Police Station
Khamanon for patrolling etc. There, PW-1 Gurcharan Singh s/o
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.03.30 10:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
bottom left
CRR-3014-2010 -2-
Sh.Atma Singh, resident of House No.38, Khukrain Colony, Anaz
Mandi, Khanna, met him and got recorded his statement PW1/A.
After true translation into English, said statement is reproduced as
under:
“Statement of Gurcharan Singh son of Shri Atma Singh
Community (withheld), resident of House No.38,
Khukrain Colony, Anaz Mandi, Khanna, aged about 72
years
It is stated that I am resident of the above said
address and am working as a Storekeeper at Sant Kartar
Filling Station, Malerkotla Road, Khanna. Today, I with
my nephew Gurmeet Singh son of Veer Singh resident of
Nandi Colony Street No.4 Near Chungi No.8, Lalheri
Road, Khanna and his wife Hardeep Kaur as well as
Gurmeet Singh son of Sewak Singh Community
(withheld) resident of Nandi Colony, Lalheri Road,
Khanna, had come to Morinda for some personal work.
After finishing our work, we were going from Morinda to
our village Khanna via Sanghol on our respective
scooters. Gurmeet Singh son of Veer Singh and his wife
Hardeep Kaur were riding on scooter bearing
registration No.PB-26A-3152 whereas I and Gurmit
Singh son of Sewak Singh, above-stated, were on scooter
bearing registration No.PIC-8863. Scooter was being
driven by Gurmeet Singh son of Sewak Singh, above-
stated. I was pillion rider of his scooter. We were
following Gurmeet Singh son of Veer Singh etc. at a
distance of 100 yards. When we reached a little ahead of
Village Khant in the boundary of Village Pholo Majra, at
about 5.15 p.m., driver of a white coloured Tata Sumo
vehicle coming from Khamanon side, while driving it in a
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.03.30 10:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
bottom left
CRR-3014-2010 -3-rash and negligent manner, hit the scooter of my nephew
Gurmeet Singh son of Veer Singh, above-stated, who was
going ahead of me and dragged the scooter to a long
distance ahead. My nephew Gurmeet Singh and his wife
Hardeep Kaur received many injuries. Because of many
injuries received by Gurmeet Singh, he died at the spot.
Scooter also was damaged severely. Hardeep kaur wife
of Gurmeet Singh was sent to Morinda for treatment with
Gurmit Singh son of Sewak Singh. Registration number
of Tata Sumo was subsequently read as PB5G-5777.
Many people gathered there. Driver of Sumo, while
finding an opportunity, left the said vehicle at the spot
and fled from there. This occurrence has been caused
because of rash, high speed and negligent driving of the
Tata Sumo by its driver. I was going to the Police Station
for giving intimation. You have met me on the way. I
have got my statement recorded to you. I have heard it.
It is correct.
Sd/- in English
Gurcharan Singh
Attested Rajwant Singh ASI
PS Khamanon
Dated 23.6.2002″
3. On the basis of the said statement, above-mentioned FIR
was registered at Police Station Khamanon. Investigation was set
into motion. PW9 ASI Rajwant Singh etc. reached the spot. It was
inspected. Its photographs were taken. Its rough site-plan was
prepared. Post-mortem on dead body of the deceased Gurmeet Singh
was got conducted from Civil Hospital, Bassi Pathana, whereafter,
his dead body was handed over to his legal heirs. Post-mortem report
was obtained. Treatment record of injured Hardeep Kaur was
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.03.30 10:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
bottom left
CRR-3014-2010 -4-
collected. Registration certificate of scooter No.PH26A-3152 was
taken in police possession. Driving licence of the deceased Gurmeet
Singh was not found at the spot despite search. Tata Sumo as well as
its registration certificate were taken into police possession through a
recovery memo. On 27.06.2002, driver of the Tata Sumo vehicle
namely Sukhdev Singh s/o Sh.Makhan Singh r/o Loco Shed,
Ferozepur Cantt., was arrested as accused of the present case and was
released on bail. Mechanical examination of the accidental vehicles
were got conducted. On conclusion of investigation, final report
under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for
brevity, ‘1973 Code’) was prepared on 26.08.2002. It was then
presented before the concerned Magistrate.
4. On receipt of the said report, the concerned Magistrate,
after complying with the provisions contained in Section 207 of the
1973 Code, heard the prosecution and the accused on the issue of
framing of charges against the accused. After such hearing, vide
order dated 03.04.2003, it charge-sheeted the accused under Section
279, 338 & 304A of the 1860 Code. However, the accused did not
plead guilty to the said charges and claimed trial.
5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined the
following witnesses:
Sr. Witness Name
No.
1 PW-1 Gurcharan Singh (complainant)
2 PW-2 Dr.Amarjit Singh, Medical Officer,
Civil Hospital, Bassi Pathana (Post-
mortem examination witness)
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.03.30 10:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
bottom left
CRR-3014-2010 -5-
3 PW-3 Hardeep Kaur widow of Gurmeet Singh
(eye witness)
4 PW-4 Karam Singh (Mechanical examination
report witness)
5 PW-5 Harjit Singh (brother of the deceased)
6 PW-6 Devinder Singh (Photographer)
7 PW-7 Shital Singh, Clerk, DTO Office,
Muktsar (Record witness)
8 PW-8 Bhushan Kumar (Record witness)
9 PW-9 ASI Rajwant Singh (Investigating
Officer)
10 PW-10 Surinder Singh (Record witness)
11 PW-11 Gurmeet Singh (Record witness)
12 PW-12 Dr.P.Sudesh, Asstt. Professor,
Department of Orthopaedics, PGI,
Chandigarh (Treatment record witness)
6. In addition to the examination of the said witnesses, the
prosecution also proved and relied upon the following documents:
Sr.No. Exhibit Nature of document
1 Ex.P1 to Photographs and negatives of the
P16 place of accident.
2 Ex.PW1/A Statement of Gurcharan Singh.
3 Ex.PW1/B Recovery memo of Tata Sumo
etc.
4 Ex.PW1/C Recovery memo of scooter.
5 Ex.PW1/A Post-mortem examination report
of the deceased.
6 Ex.PW1/B Pictorial diagrams.
7 Ex.PW4/A Mechanical examination report of
Tata Sumo.
8 Ex.PW4/B Mechanical examination report of
scooter.
9 Ex.PW4/A Mechanical examination report of
Tata Sumo.
10 Ex.PW4/B Statement under Section 175 of
1973 Code.
11 Ex.PW4/C Receipt of dead body.
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.03.30 10:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
bottom left
CRR-3014-2010 -6-
12 Ex.PW5/A Recovery memo of photographs
and negatives.
13 Ex.PW7/A Verification report dated
28.06.2002.
14 Ex.PW8/A Photocopy of relevant page of
register in respect of scooter
bearing Registration No.PB-26A-
3152.
15 Ex.PW8/B Registration certificate of scooter
bearing registration No.PB-26A-
3152.
16 Ex.PW9/A Police proceedings.
17 Ex.PW9/B Copy of FIR.
18 Ex.PW9/C Rough Site plan of the place of
occurrence.
19 Ex.PW9/D Inquest proceedings.
20 Ex.PW9/E Statement under Section 175 of
1973 Code.
21 Ex.PW9/F Application for getting medical
record of Hardeep Kaur.
22 Ex.PW9/G Opinion of the doctor.
23 Ex.PW9/H Jama Talashi Memo of the
accused.
24 Ex.PW9/J Arrest memo of the accused.
25 Ex.PW9/L Mechanical examination report
26 Ex.PW9/M Mechanical examination report.
27 Ex.PW10/A Registration certificate of Tata
Sumo.
28 Ex.PW10/D Verification report.
29 Ex.PW12/A Medico-legal case summary of
Hardeep Kaur.
30 Ex.PW12/B Injury report of Hardeep Kaur.
7. On completion of prosecution evidence, the Learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate,Fatehgarh Sahib (for brevity “Magistrate”)
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.03.30 10:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
bottom left
CRR-3014-2010 -7-
recorded statement of the accused under Section 313 of the 1973
Code. In the said statement, the accused claimed false implication.
Despite availing opportunities to lead defence, he did not examine
any witness.
8. On conclusion of evidence, the Learned Magistrate heard
the parties on merits of the case. After such hearing, it
convicted/sentenced the accused in the following manner:-
U/s Sentence Fine (in Rs.)
279 of Rigorous Imprisonment -
1860 Code for 6 months
338 of Rigorous Imprisonment Rs.1000/- and in default to
1860 Code for 6 months further undergo RI for 15 days
304-A of Rigorous Imprisonment Rs.1000/- and in default to
1860 Code for 2 months further undergo RI for 6 months
9. Aggrieved of the said conviction/sentence, the accused
filed an appeal before the Learned Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib.
However, it was dismissed by the Appellate Court through the
impugned judgment dated 27.07.2010.
10. Aggrieved of the said dismissal, the accused is before this
Court in revision.
11. I have heard Shri Karan Sirohi, the learned counsel for
the accused as well as Shri Kuljeet Singh, Addl.A.G., Punjab, on
merits of the petition. With their assistance, I have perused the
photostat copy of the record.
12. Learned counsel for the accused has argued that
identification of the accused for the first time in the Court was not
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.03.30 10:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
bottom left
CRR-3014-2010 -8-
sufficient to connect him with the crime in question. No test
identification parade was conducted. PW1 Gurucharan Singh and
other eye-witnesses deposed that driver of the Sumo had fled from the
spot in opposite direction. If facts of the case in question are
considered in that manner, there was no opportunity with the eye-
witnesses to identify the driver. Prosecution has not established as to
how they had identified the accused as offender of the case in
question. Driving license of the accused was not recovered from the
alleged place of accident. Recovery memo in that regard is false. The
said driving license was not attached to the final report. In the
absence of any test identification parade, identity of the accused as
committing the alleged offences has not been established. He has
accordingly prayed for setting aside the impugned judgments and
order as well as for acceptance of the petition.
13. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General
has argued that the accused has been identified as committing the
offences in question before the Court. Such identification is sufficient
in law. Driving licence of the accused was recovered from the Sumo
when it was taken into police possession from the spot. In view of
thereof, non-holding of test identification parade during investigation,
pales into insignificance. Evidence on record connects the accused
with the offences in question to the hilt. He has accordingly prayed
for dismissal of the revision petition.
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.03.30 10:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
bottom left
CRR-3014-2010 -9-
14. After such hearing and perusal, I may state that through
the impugned judgments and order, the accused was convicted and
sentenced for the above mentioned offences. The present petition is a
revision petition filed under Section 401 of the 1973 Code. Such a
petition has to be dealt with within the parameters prescribed under
the said section. Said section is therefore reproduced as under:-
“401. High Court’s powers of revision.–
(1) In the case of any proceeding the record of which has
been called for by itself or which otherwise comes to its
knowledge, the High Court may, in its discretion, exercise any
of the powers conferred on a Court of Appeal by sections 386,
389, 390 and 391 or on a Court of Session by section 307,
and, when the Judges composing the Court of Revision are
equally divided in opinion, the case shall be disposed of in the
manner provided by section 392.
(2) No order under this section shall be made to the prejudice
of the accused or other person unless he has had an
opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in
his own defence.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a
High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of
conviction.
(4) Where under this Code an appeal lies and no appeal is
brought, no proceeding by way of revision shall be
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.03.30 10:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
bottom left
CRR-3014-2010 -10-entertained at the instance of the party who could have
appealed.
(5) Where under this Code an appeal lies but an application
for revision has been made to the High Court by any person
and the High Court is satisfied that such application was
made under the erroneous belief that no appeal lies thereto
and that it is necessary in the interests of Justice so to do, the
High Court may treat the application for revision as a
petition of appeal and deal with the same accordingly.”
15. I may also state that in respect of scope of revisional
powers of a High Court, a three Judge Bench of Hon’ble the Supreme
Court, in the report “Pakalapati Narayana Gajapathi Raju &
others Vs. Bonapalli Peda Appadu & another“, (1975) 4 SCC 477,
observed as under:-
“3. Section 439 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
provides that in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the
High Court may exercise any of the powers conferred on
a court of appeal. This provision is made expressly
subject to sub-section (4) of Section 439 under which
nothing contained in the section shall be deemed to
authorise a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal
into one of conviction. Section 439 has been interpreted
in several decisions of this Court which have taken the
view that the revisional jurisdiction, when invoked by a
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.03.30 10:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
bottom left
CRR-3014-2010 -11-private complainant against an order of acquittal, ought
not to be exercised lightly and that it can be exercised
only in exceptional cases where the interests of public
justice require interference for the correction of a
manifest illegality or the prevention of a gross
miscarriage of justice.(See Satyendra Nath Dutta v. Ram
Narain, (1975) 3 SCC 398; Akalu Ahir v. Ramdeo Ram,
(1974) 1 SCR 130; Changanti Kotaiah v. Goginoni
Venkateshwara Rao, (1973) 3 SCR 867. It is clear from
these decisions that the revisional jurisdiction cannot be
invoked merely because the lower court has not
appreciated the evidence properly. The High Court has in
its judgment referred to the decisions of this Court but in
applying those decisions it has transgressed the limits of
its revisional powers.”
16. In respect of scope of revisional powers of a High Court,
a three Judge Bench of Hon’ble the Supreme Court, in the report
“Duli Chand Vs. Delhi Administration“, (1975) 4 SCC 649,
observed as under:-
“4. …… Now, the jurisdiction of the High Court in a
Criminal Revision Application is severally restricted and
it cannot embark upon reappreciation of the evidence,
but even so, the learned single Judge of the High Court
who heard the revision application, examined the
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.03.30 10:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
bottom left
CRR-3014-2010 -12-evidence afresh at the instance of the appellant. This was,
however, of no avail, as the learned single Judge found
that the conclusion reached by the lower Courts that the
appellant was guilty of gross negligence, was correct and
there was no reason to interfere with the conviction of the
appellant. …..
5. …..The High Court in revision was exercising
supervisory jurisdiction of a restricted nature and,
therefore, it would have been justified in refusing to re-
appreciate the evidence for the purpose of determining
whether the concurrent finding of fact reached by the
learned Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions
Judge was correct. But even so, the High Court reviewed
the evidence presumably for the purpose of satisfying
itself that there was evidence in support of the finding of
fact reached by the two subordinate courts and that the
finding of fact was not unreasonable or perverse. The
High Court came to the conclusion that the evidence
clearly established that the death of the deceased was
caused on account of the negligent driving of the bus by
the appellant. …..”.
17. In respect of such powers, a two Judge Bench of Hon’ble
the Supreme Court, in the report “Janata Dal Vs. H.S.Chowdhary“,
(1992) 4 SCC 305, observed as under:-
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.03.30 10:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
bottom left
CRR-3014-2010 -13-
“130. The object of the revisional jurisdiction under
Section 401 is to confer power upon superior criminal
Courts – a kind of paternal or supervisory jurisdiction – in
order to correct miscarriage of justice arising from
misconception of law, irregularity of procedure, neglect
of proper precaution or apparent harshness of treatment
which has resulted on the one hand, or on the other hand
in some undeserved hardship to individuals. The
controlling power of the High Court is discretionary and
it must be exercised in the interest of justice with regard
to all facts and circumstances of each particular case,
anxious attention being given to the said facts and
circumstances which vary greatly from case to case.
131. xxxx xxxx xxxx
132. The criminal Courts are clothed with inherent power
to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of
justice. Such power though unrestricted and undefined
should not be capriciously or arbitrarily exercised, but
should be exercised in appropriate cases, ex debito
justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the
administration of which alone the Courts exist. The
powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of
the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the
power requires great caution in its exercise. Courts must
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.03.30 10:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
bottom left
CRR-3014-2010 -14-be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power
is based on sound principles.”
18. While quoting observations made in Janata Dal’s report
(supra) with approval, a three Judge Bench of Hon’ble the Supreme
Court, in the report “T.N.Dhakkal Vs. James Basnett & another”,
(2001) 10 SCC 419, observed as under:-
“9. We are in agreement with the above exposition of
law. We are of the opinion that though the High Court
has revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code
and can exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to correct
miscarriage of justice, but whether or not, there is
justification for the exercise of that discretionary
jurisdiction would depend upon the facts and
circumstances of each case. The controlling power of the
High Court under Section 401 of the Code being
discretionary is required to be exercised only in the
interest of justice, having regard to all the facts and
circumstances of each particular case and not
mechanically.”
19. In respect of revisional jurisdiction of a High Court, a
two Judge Bench of Hon’ble the Supreme Court, in the report “State
of Kerala Vs. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri“, (1999)
2 SCC 452, observed as under:-
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.03.30 10:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
bottom left
CRR-3014-2010 -15-
“Having examined the impugned Judgment of the High
Court and bearing in mind the contentions raised by the
learned counsel for the parties, we have no hesitation to
come to the conclusion that in the case in hand, the High
Court has exceeded its revisional jurisdiction. In Its
revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and
examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of
satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety
of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the
jurisdiction is one of Supervisory Jurisdiction exercised
by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice.
But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the
power of an Appellate Court nor can it be treated even as
a second Appellate Jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it
would not be appropriate for the High Court to re-
appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion
on the same when the evidence has already been
appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions
Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to
the notice of the High Court which would otherwise
tentamount to gross miscarriage of justice.”
20. Observations made in Duli Chand’s report (supra) and
those made in a report “State of Orissa VS. Nakula Sahu“, (1979) 1
SCC 328 as well as Puttumana Illath’s report (supra) were
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.03.30 10:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
bottom left
CRR-3014-2010 -16-
approved by a three Judge Bench of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in
the report “Raj Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh“, (2008) 11
SCC 76.
21. Applying the said observations to the present case, I may
state that the FIR in the present case was registered on the basis of a
statement Ex.PW1/A of PW1 Gurcharan Singh. True it is that in the
said document, the said PW has alleged rashness, negligence and
high-speed driving to driver of the Tata Sumo by stating that its
driver hit scooter of the deceased Gurmeet Singh from opposite side.
At the same time, the said document does not say that PW1
Gurcharan Singh was known to driver of the Tata Sumo prior to the
date of occurrence in question. In the said document, he also does not
say that driver of the Tata Sumo had come near to him. It simply
mentions that thereafter registration number of the Tata Sumo was
read by PW1 Gurcharan Singh as “PB-5G-5777” and many people
gathered at the spot because of which the driver of the Tata Sumo, by
taking advantage of the situation, fled from the spot by leaving the
Tata Sumo. Therefore, the said document does not establish identity
of the driver of the Tata Sumo causing the accident. However,
prosecution alleges that on 23.06.2002 itself PW9 ASI Rajwant Singh
took the said Tata Sumo in police possession from the spot with the
registration certificate thereof and also a driving license of the
accused. At the same time, a perusal of the final report dated
26.08.2002 prepared/presented in the case in question does not show
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.03.30 10:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
bottom left
CRR-3014-2010 -17-
that driving license of driver of the said Tata Sumo was taken into
police possession from the spot with the said vehicle and its
registration certificate. It simply says that the said Tata Sumo and its
registration certificate were taken into police possession therefrom.
Not only this, a perusal of the said final report also shows that driving
license allegedly recovered from the spot contained in the said Tata
Sumo has not been mentioned to have been attached with the said
report for presentation before the Court. The said fact could have
been ignored if the said driving license would have been produced
before the Court and would have been got exhibited in evidence. At
the same time, evidence produced in the case in question does not
show that driving license allegedly recovered from the spot and
allegedly belonging to the accused was produced/exhibited in
prosecution evidence. Therefore, prosecution contention that driving
license of the accused was recovered from the said Tata Sumo when
it was taken into police possession from the spot on 23.06.2002 has
not been established. In the absence of proof of such
recovery/production/exhibition, it is to be held that no driving license
was recovered from the spot in the manner alleged, not to talk of the
driving license of the accused. Once it is so, it has to be
held/concluded that on the date of arrest of the accused i.e.
27.06.2002 as offender of the present case, there was no link evidence
with the police to conclude that the accused was driver of the Tata
Sumo. At the same time, the prosecution case as well as evidence has
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.03.30 10:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
bottom left
CRR-3014-2010 -18-
proceeded on the premises that the accused was traced on the basis of
the driving license recovered from the said Tata Sumo. Deposition of
PW1 Gurcharan Singh and PW9 Rajwant Singh is on similar lines.
However, they are not supported by the evidence on record. Driving
license allegedly recovered from the spot has till date not seen the
light of the day. In the absence thereof, contents of the recovery
memo Ex.PW10/A are incorrect. If the same are incorrect, it cannot
be held that driving license of the accused was recovered from the
above-stated Tata Sumo in the manner alleged.
22. I may also state that prosecution does not say that before
arrest of the accused in the present case, it conducted a test
identification parade. PW1 Gurcharan Singh, PW3 Harjeet Kaur and
PW11 Gurmeet Singh also do not say that before arrest of the accused
in the present case, a test identification parade was conducted by the
police or that the accused was identified by them before his such
arrest. So far as identification of a person arrested in a criminal case
is concerned, it is to be done in terms of Section 54A of the 1973
Code. Said section is accordingly reproduced as under:-
“54A. [ Identification of person arrested :-
– Where a person is arrested on a charge of committing
an offence and his identification by any other person or
persons is considered necessary for the purpose of
investigation of such offence, the Court, having
jurisdiction may, on the request of the officer in charge of
a police station, direct the person so arrested to subject
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.03.30 10:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
bottom left
CRR-3014-2010 -19-himself to identification by any person or persons in such
manner as the Court may deem fit.]
[Provided that, if the person identifying the person
arrested is mentally or physically disabled, such process
of identification shall take place under the supervision of
a Judicial Magistrate who shall take appropriate steps to
ensure that such person identifies the person arrested
using methods that person is comfortable with:
Provided further that if the person identifying the person
arrested is mentally or physically disabled, the
identification process shall be video-graphed.]”
23. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the report “Kanan and
others Vs. State of Kerala“, AIR 1979 SC 1127, in respect of value
of an identification done for the first time in the Court, observed and
held as under:-
“It is well settled that where a witness Identifies an
accused who is not known to him in the Court for the first
time, his evidence is absolutely valueless unless there has
been a previous T. I. parade to test his powers of
observations. The Idea of holding T. I. parade under
Section 9 of the Evidence Act is to test the veracity of the
witness on the question of his capability to identify an
unknown person whom the witness may have seen only
once. If no T. I. parade is held then it will be wholly
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.03.30 10:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
bottom left
CRR-3014-2010 -20-unsafe to rely on his bare testimony regarding the
identification of an accused for the first time in Court. In
these circumstances, therefore, we feel that it was
incumbent on the prosecution in this case to have
arranged T. I. parade and get the identification made
before the witness was called upon to identify the
appellant in the court.”
24. If the said section and observations are applied to the case
in question, identification of the accused done by PW1 Gurcharan
Singh, PW3 Hardeep Kaur and PW11 Gurmeet Singh for the first
time in the Court has no value and sanctity in law. None of the said
prosecution witnesses has deposed that the accused was known to
them prior to the occurrence in question. They also do not say that
the accused came near to them after committing the alleged offences.
Rather, PW1 Gurcharan Singh is categoric that many people gathered
at the spot and driver of the Tata Sumo by taking advantage of the
said gathering fled from the spot towards opposite side, i.e. from the
side from which the Tata Sumo was coming. His such deposition,
therefore, establishes that he did not properly see the driver before he
fled from the spot. So far as PW3 Hardeep Kaur and PW11 Gurmeet
Singh are concerned, they identified the accused for the first time in
the Court. For the fact that they did not know the accused prior to the
occurrence in question, his identification by them for the first time in
the court as an accused of the case in question, pales into
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.03.30 10:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
bottom left
CRR-3014-2010 -21-
insignificance and is not sufficient to connect him to the commission
of the offences in question. However, the impugned judgments have
held the accused guilty on the basis of identification by the said
prosecution witnesses done for the first time in the court. The
impugned judgments, therefore, are contrary to the above reproduced
observations and manifestly illegal causing gross miscarriage of
justice. Such judgments have neglected to exercise proper precaution
and suffer from manifest error on the above-stated point of law.
Revisional powers of a High Court should be exercised to do real and
substantial justice. The above-stated facts and observations make the
present case a fit case for exercise of revisional jurisdiction against
the impugned judgments and order.
25. There is one more factor to be noticed. In the statement
Ex. PW1/A, PW1 Gurcharan Singh has given registration number of
the Tata Sumo as “PB-5G-5777”. In the recovery memo Ex. PW10/A
also, registration number of the said vehicle has been mentioned as
such. At the same time, in mechanical examination report Ex.PW4/A,
registration number of the said vehicle has been mentioned as “PB-
05G-5777”. In the photocopy of the registration certificate of the said
vehicle appended to the file also, its registration number has been
mentioned as “PB-05G-5777”. Photograph Ex.P6 also shows that its
registration number is “PB-05G-5777”. If the statement Ex.PW1/A
would not have mentioned registration number of the vehicle, it could
have been understood that PW1 Gurcharan Singh would have
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.03.30 10:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
bottom left
CRR-3014-2010 -22-
inadvertently omitted to mention the same. At the same time, in the
said statement, he mentions number of the said vehicle specifically as
“PB-5G-5777”. Even in the recovery memo Ex.PW1/B, its
registration number has been mentioned as such. The said documents
are the first documents to have been prepared by the prosecution but
in the same, registration number of the Tata Sumo has not been
correctly mentioned. As against the said fact, true registration number
of the said vehicle was “PB-05G-5777”. May be that the said fact, of
its own, would not have counted much in favour of the accused. At
the same time, it, coupled with the above stated discussion, supports
the accused when he contends that he has been falsely implicated in
the case in question and his identity in it as committing the alleged
offences has not been duly proved. The arguments raised on behalf of
the State of Punjab are therefore rejected.
26. For what has been stated above, I am of the considered
opinion that the impugned judgments and order of sentence cannot
legally be sustained. The same, with all consequential proceedings,
are accordingly set aside. In turn, the accused is acquitted of the
charges framed against him in the case in question by extending
benefit of doubt. All interim application/s, if any, stand disposed of.
March 19th, 2026 (RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI)
sailesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : Yes
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.03.30 10:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
bottom left
