138 NI Act | Admission Of Signatures On Cheque Triggers Statutory Presumption Of Debt: Punjab & Haryana HC Magistrate Cannot Straightaway Issue NBW For Non-Appearance If Accused Is Already On Bail; Bail Valid Until Cancelled: Orissa High Court Bank Cannot Dishonour Cheques Merely Because Account Title Changed From Partnership To Proprietorship: Madhya Pradesh High Court Environmental Clearance Is Site-Specific; Violations At Different Site By Related Entity Not Ground To Deny New EC: Kerala High Court Advocate’s Failure To Formally Prove Fee Bill Not Fatal To Claim If Oral Evidence Establishes Non-Payment Of Agreed Professional Fees: Delhi High Court Police Officers Cannot Fight Over Specific Postings; Disciplined Force Must Prioritize Public Interest Over Location: Karnataka High Court RERA Section 18 Interest For Delayed Possession Is An Unqualified Absolute Right; Notice Under Section 55 Contract Act Not Required: Bombay High Court State Cannot Hand Over Additional Charge Of Sensitive Posts To Tainted Officers Facing Disciplinary Action: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mandatory Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Essential If Accused Resides Outside Jurisdiction; Commercial Breach Not Criminal Offence: Calcutta High Court Disciplinary Enquiry Cannot Be Quashed Merely For Delay In Conclusion; 6-Month Timeline Under G.O.Ms.No.679 Is Directory: Andhra Pradesh High Court Exoneration In Adjudication Proceedings No Bar To Criminal Prosecution If CBI Collects Independent Evidence Of Forgery & Conspiracy: Bombay High Court Public Prosecutor Not A 'Post Office' Of Investigating Agency; Independent Application Of Mind Mandatory For Extending Remand Beyond 180 Days Under NDPS Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Complainant Cannot Use Section 311 CrPC To Reopen Pre-Charge Stage After Explicit Waiver & Framing Of Charges: Allahabad High Court Bomb Blast In Train Is An 'Accident' Under Railways Act, Union Of India Liable To Pay Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Bail Hearing Can Proceed In Informant's Absence If Notice Was Served Despite Section 483(2) BNSS Mandate: Allahabad High Court

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