Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras High Court

"High Court Sets Aside Conviction, Stating 'Identity of the Accused-Petitioner as the Driver of Offending Vehicle Not Established'"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside the conviction of Narinder Singh, who was earlier found guilty under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC by the trial court. The High Court observed that the "identity of the accused-petitioner as the driver of the offending vehicle was not at all established."

Justice Deepak Gupta, presiding over the case, noted that the prosecution's failure to provide cogent evidence led to the decision. "It is to be noted that the prosecution examined only 3 witnesses so as to prove its charges," the judge said, adding that none of these witnesses could confirm seeing the accused at the spot of the accident.

The case dates back to June 8, 2011, when a truck allegedly driven by Narinder Singh hit a tractor trolley, causing injuries to multiple people and leading to one fatality. Singh was arrested and later convicted by the trial court, a decision upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge in Amritsar.

However, the High Court found several lapses in the prosecution's case, including the absence of key witnesses and failure to conduct a test identification parade. "Prosecution did not examine the Investigating Officer of the case so as to prove the steps taken during investigation," Justice Gupta observed.

The petitioner had also made an alternative submission, stating that a compromise was reached with the legal heirs of the deceased, but the High Court did not consider this due to the fundamental lapses in establishing the identity of the accused.

"In view of the aforesaid circumstances, particularly non-establishing the identity of the accused-petitioner as the driver of offending vehicle, the conviction as recorded by the trial Court and as affirmed by the Appellate Court, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law," the judgement read.

The ruling has been welcomed by legal experts who believe it underscores the importance of thorough investigation and proper presentation of evidence in criminal cases.

The revision petition filed by Narinder Singh has been allowed, and the earlier judgments of conviction have been set aside, offering him a significant legal reprieve.

Date of Decision:19th September 2023

Narinder Singh  vs State of Punjab

Latest Legal News