http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: PREM PAL SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       03/09/1996

BENCH: KURDUKAR S.P. (J) BENCH: KURDUKAR S.P. (J) MUKHERJEE M.K. (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (7)   647        1996 SCALE  (6)318

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T S.P.KURDUKAR. J.      The appellant  accused was  employed as a driver in the Pepsu  Roadways   Transport   Corporation.   The   appellant alongwith  Jagdip   Singh,  Ranjit   Singh,  Daljit   Singh, Sukhminder Singh  and Anokh  Singh conspired  to  cause  the death of  Sh. A.P.Pandey,  the then Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana. In pursuance of the said conspiracy on 9th July, 1985, at about 2.00 p.m., the appellant alongwith four others mentioned  hereinabove attempted to commit the murder of Shri A.P.Pandey by driving and dashing Truck No. PNP-3477 against the staff car No. PAM-33. 2.   It is  allowed by  the prosecution that Shri Pandey was sitting on the back seat of the staff car whereas his gunman Head Constable  Bakshish Singh  (PW 3)  was sitting  on  the front side  by the  side driver Shri Hari Chand (PW 1). When the car  of Shri  Pandey, was  about to  crosss Chowk Bharat Nagar, Ludhiana,  the gunman  noticed one person driving the Scooter and  proceeding in  front  of  the  staff  car.  The scooterist took  a turn  towards Major  Gurdial  Singh  Road after giving  signal where  a Fiat Car was parked stationary on the road facing towards Ghumar Mandi Road, Ludhiana. When the staff  car proceeded  towards Mall  Road and reached Red Cross Bhawan,  the driver  Hari Chand (PW 1) noticed a Truck bearing No. PNP-3477 that was parked on one side of the Mall Road  facing   the  opposite   direction  with   its  engine on(running). When  the staff  car was about to pass in front of the  said  truck,  the  appellant  drove  the  Truck  and intentionally dashed  against the left side of the staff car as a  result of  which the left portion thereof was damaged. The impact  of the  truck was so powerful that the staff car struck against  the concrete portion of the Mall Road and as a result  thereof right  side wheel  of the  staff car broke down and  detached from  the body of the car. As a result of this accident,  Shri  Pandey,  his  gunman  and  the  driver sustained  minor   injuries  and  abrasions.  The  appellant

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

thereafter abandoned  the truck  and started running towards Major Gurdial Singh Road where the Scooter and Fiat Car were parked. However, the appellant was apprehended by the escort party of  Mr.A.P.Pandey which  was then  following the staff car. The  Scooter and  Fiat Car  however disappeared. In the meantime, wireless  message was  sent to  the police station whereupon the  inspector reached  the place  of accident and commenced the  investigation. The  statement of  the  driver Shri Hari Chand (PW 1) was recorded and on the basis thereof a formal  FIR come  to be  registered. After  completing the necessary  investigation,   a  charge   sheet  against   the appellant came  to be  filed in  the  Designated  Court  for offences punishable  under Section 30% 427,323/120B, 143 and 149 of  the [PC  and under Section 4(3) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985. 3.   The accused  denied the charge and claimed to be tried. According to  the appellant,  he  is  a  resident  of  Bassi Pathana and  on the  date of  occurrence, he had brought his ailing father  to Ludhiana  for medical care and left him in Gurdwara near Jagraon bridge. He further pleaded that he was a new comer to Ludhiana city. He admitted that he had parked his Truck  towards the wrong side. After noticing a flag car coming at  a high  speed, he was frightened as he was on the wrong side  of the  road and became panicky. At the relevant time,  a  rickshaw  carrying  the  women  and  children  was proceeding on  the  said  road  and  in  order  to  avoid  a collision with  the said  rickshaw, he  took a turn and as a result thereof,  his Truck  dashed against  the staff car of Shri A.P.Pandey  . He  had no  intention whatsoever  to dash against the staff car of Shri A.P.Pandey and it was an error of judgment while saving the occupants in the auto rickshaw. He was gainfully employed at the relevant time and he had no track record  of any  terrorist activities.  He is neither a terrorist nor  there was  any conspiracy  as alleged  by the prosecution. The allegations levelled against him are false. He is innocent and be acquitted. 4.   In support  of its  case, the prosecution mainly relied upon the  evidence of  the driver  Hari Chand  (PW 1),  Shri A.P.Pandey, SSP (PW 2), Head Constable Ram Kishan (PW $) and other formal  witnesses including various panchnamas and the injury certificates issued by the Medical Officer. 5.   The Designated  Court, Ludhiana,  on appraisal  of oral and documentary evidence on record by its judgment and order dated December 1, 1986 convicted the appellant under Section 307 and  427 IPC  and sentenced  him to  suffer RI  for five years and  one year  respectively and to payment of fine, to undergo  further   RI  for  year.  The  appellant  was  also convicted under section 4(3) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention)  Act, 1985,  and sentenced to suffer RI for  five years  and to pay a fine, to undergo RI for one year. It  is this order of conviction and sentence passed by the  Designated  Court,  Ludhiana  which  is  sought  to  be challenged by the appellant in this appeal. 6.    Ms.  Madhu Moolchandani, the learned counsel appearing in support  of this  appeal urged  that the prosecution must fail  for   want  of   evidence  of  independent  witnesses. According to  the learned  counsel, Hari  Chand (PW 1), Shri A.P.Pandey (PW  2), Head  Constable Ram  Kishan (PW  4)  and Bakshish Singh  (PW  3)  were  highly  interested  witnesses inasmuch as they were from the police constabulary which was under control  of Shri  A.P.Pandey (PW  @0, the  then Senior Superintendent of  police, Ludhiana. The incident alleged to have taken  place in  the noon  time on a busy road and many persons were  said to have seen the accident in question. In this view  of the matter, it was the duty of the prosecution

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

to examine  some independent  witnesses to  corroborate  the ocular evidence of the eye witnesses. She also urged that in order to  save the  lives  of  the  occupants  in  the  auto rickshaw, he  was required  to take suddenly a turn and as a result thereof,  his Truck  dashed against the staff car. If the appellant  had a  motive to  commit the  murder of  Shri A.P.Pandey, it  was very  easy for  him crush  the staff car completely. The  appellant applied  the brakes  of the Truck urgently but  could not succeed in halting the Truck to save the  accident.   Learned  Counsel  further  urged  that  the Designated Court  has  wrongly  applied  the  provisions  of Section 4(3)  of the  Terrorist  and  Disruptive  Activities (Prevention) Act,  1985. There  was no  material before  the Court to   rope  in the  appellant under  the said Act. She, urged that  the appellant is innocent. It is pure and simple accident and the appellant be acquitted.      7.  We   have  carefully   gone  though  the  oral  and documentary evidence  on record.  We have  also perused  the impugned judgment.  In our opinion, there is no substance in any of these contentions raised on behalf of the appellant.      8. The evidence of Hari Chand (PW 1), the driver of the staff car and the evidence of Bakshish Singh, the gunman (PW 3) unmistakably  indicate that  the appellant  had  purposed parked his  Truck on  the wrong  side with the engine on and was waiting  for the  staff car  of Shri  A.P.Pandey to pass along the  place of occurrence. Their evidence further shows that when  the staff  car was  about to  cross the Red Cross Bhawan, the  appellant who was on wait in the Truck with the engine on  suddenly moved  in the direction of the staff car and dashed  against the  said car.  The very  impact  itself would indicate  that it was motivated one. The staff car was completely smashed  on the left side. The wheel of the right side of the staff car was also broken down and detached from the body  of the  said vehicle. It was sheer providence that Shri A.P.Pandey  sustained minor injuries only. The evidence of Ram  Kishan, HC(PW  4) who  was  sitting  in  the  escort vehicle also corroborates the evidence of the Hari Chand (PW 1), Bakshish  Singh (PW 3) and Shri A.P.Pandey (PW 2). There is no substance in the contention that the prosecution ought to have examined an independent witness. The evidence of the above  four   eye  witnesses   suffers  from   no  infirmity whatsoever and we do not see any reason to discard the same.      9. In  addition to the above ocular evidence of the eye witnesses, we have also evidence of Pritam Singh (PW 5), the photographer who  took photographs  of  the  truck  and  the damaged car  and his  evidence also  supports the  manner in which the  incident took  place. Zulfi Ram (PW 6), the motor mechanic also  deposed that  the left  side of the staff car was completely damaged.      The medical  evidence on the record also indicates that Hari Chand  (PW 1)  and  Bakshish  Singh  (PW  3)  sustained injuries in  the said  accident. Shri A.P.Pandey (PW 2) also sustained injuries(abrasions).      10. After  going through the evidence on record, we are satisfied that  it was  a planned  action on the part of the appellant to  commit the murder of Shri A.P.Pandey, the then Senior Superintendent  of police,  Ludhiana, with  a view to create a  terror in  the public  at large. The very accident speaks for  itself. The  impugned judgment in our considered view suffers  from no  illegality. The appeal, is therefore, devoid of any merit.      11. In the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. The appellant, who is on bail, shall surrender to his bailbonds forthwith to serve out the remaining period of his sentence.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4