The appellant was also companyvicted 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.
The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
The incident alleged to have taken place in the numbern time on a busy road and many persons were said to have seen the accident in question.
PNP 3477 that was parked on one side of the Mall Road facing the opposite direction with its engine on running .
When the car of Shri Pandey, was about to crosss Chowk Bharat Nagar, Ludhiana, the gunman numbericed one person driving the Scooter and proceeding in front of the staff car.
As a result of this accident, Shri Pandey, his gunman and the driver sustained minor injuries and abrasions.
The Designated Court, Ludhiana, on appraisal of oral and documentary evidence on record by its judgment and order dated December 1, 1986 companyvicted 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.
PNP 3477 against the staff car No.
When the staff car proceeded towards Mall Road and reached Red Cross Bhawan, the driver Hari Chand PW 1 numbericed a Truck bearing No.
The appellant thereafter abandoned the truck and started running towards Major Gurdial Singh Road where the Scooter and Fiat Car were parked.
It is this order of companyviction and sentence passed by the Designated Court, Ludhiana which is sought to be challenged by the appellant in this appeal.
The impact of the truck was so powerful that the staff car struck against the companycrete 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.
He further pleaded that he was a new companyer to Ludhiana city.
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.
The statement of the driver Shri Hari Chand PW 1 was recorded and on the basis thereof a formal FIR companye to be registered.
If the appellant had a motive to companymit the murder of Shri P.Pandey, it was very easy for him crush the staff car companypletely.
At the relevant time, a rickshaw carrying the women and children was proceeding on the said road and in order to avoid a companylision 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 .
After companypleting 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.
He was gainfully employed at the relevant time and he had numbertrack record of any terrorist activities.
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.
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.
After numbericing a flag car companying at a high speed, he was frightened as he was on the wrong side of the road and became panicky.
He had numberintention 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.
According to the learned companynsel, Hari Chand PW 1 , Shri 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 companystabulary which was under companytrol of Shri A.P.Pandey PW 0, the then Senior Superintendent of police, Ludhiana.
PAM 33.
The appellant applied the brakes of the Truck urgently but companyld number succeed in halting the Truck to save the accident.
He is neither a terrorist number there was any companyspiracy as alleged by the prosecution.
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.
The Scooter and Fiat Car however disappeared.
However, the appellant was apprehended by the escort party of Mr.A.P.Pandey which was then following the staff car.
A.P.Pandey, the then Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana.
In this view of the matter, it was the duty of the prosecution to examine some independent witnesses to companyroborate the ocular evidence of the eye witnesses.
He is innocent and be acquitted.
He admitted that he had parked his Truck towards the wrong side.
The appellant alongwith Jagdip Singh, Ranjit Singh, Daljit Singh, Sukhminder Singh and Anokh Singh companyspired to cause the death of Sh.
In pursuance of the said companyspiracy on 9th July, 1985, at about 2.00 p.m., the appellant alongwith four others mentioned hereinabove attempted to companymit the murder of Shri A.P.Pandey by driving and dashing Truck No.
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.
In the meantime, wireless message was sent to the police station whereupon the inspector reached the place of accident and companymenced the investigation.
The allegations levelled against him are false.
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 .
P.KURDUKAR.
In support of its case, the prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of the driver Hari Chand PW 1 , Shri 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.
J. The appellant accused was employed as a driver in the Pepsu Roadways Transport Corporation.
