Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’ Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance

Punjab and Haryana High Court Acquits Ginder Singh in Hit-and-Run Case, Citing Probable Defense

03 September 2024 10:23 AM

By: Admin


In a significant verdict, the Punjab and Haryana High Court acquitted Ginder Singh, the appellant in a hit-and-run case, overturning the concurrent finding of conviction by the lower courts. Justice Deepak Gupta, presiding over the case, pronounced the judgment on May 10, 2023, granting the accused the benefit of doubt based on the highly probable defense presented.

The case revolved around an incident that occurred on July 9, 2003, wherein Ginder Singh was alleged to have driven a PRTC bus that collided with a scooter, resulting in the deaths of Rattan Kumar and Kamlesh Kaur. The incident took place near Village Rajgarh in Patiala, Punjab.

The lower court had convicted Ginder Singh under Sections 304-A (causing death by negligence) and 279 (rash driving) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, after careful examination of the evidence and testimonies, found inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses' version and deemed the defense's account as highly probable.

Justice Deepak Gupta, in his judgment, noted that the prosecution witnesses' statements appeared highly improbable when analyzed in light of the site plan and the location of the vehicles involved in the accident. The defense's argument, supported by independent witnesses who were passengers on the bus, suggested that the deceased scooter driver had turned abruptly without signaling, making it impossible for the accused to avoid the collision.

The court emphasized the duty to analyze the testimonies of both prosecution and defense witnesses on equal parameters to assess their truthfulness. In this case, the defense's version was found to be highly probable and supported by reliable witnesses, leading to the acquittal of Ginder Singh.

This verdict highlights the importance of considering the defense's perspective and ensuring the principle of "innocent until proven guilty." The court's decision to grant the benefit of doubt to the accused showcases the judiciary's commitment to upholding fairness and justice.

It is noteworthy that no specific cases were referred to in the judgment, indicating that the decision was based on the evaluation of the evidence and testimonies presented in this particular case.

The acquittal of Ginder Singh in this hit-and-run case serves as a reminder of the critical role played by the courts in ensuring a fair and just legal system, where every individual is given a fair chance to present their defense and benefit from the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

Decided on: 10.05.2023

Ginder Singh - vs State of Punjab 

Latest Legal News