Crl. Revision No.584 of 2004 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** Crl. Revision No.584 of 2004 Date of decision : 8.11.2010 Jagan Nath -----Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab -----Respondent CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL : Present:- Ms. Rupinder Kaur Thind, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.O.P.Dabla, DAG, Punjab, for the respondent --- A.N.JINDAL, J (ORAL) : This petition has arisen out of the judgment dated 23.2.2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, dismissing the appeal against the judgment dated 16.7.2003 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sunam, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-under Section 304A IPC. The factual matrix of the case is that on 12.7.1997 complainant Daljit Singh (herein referred as the complainant) was present at the bus stand of village Cheema. On that day at about 5.30 A.M. his brother-in-law Amar Singh accompanied by Baldev Krishan came from village Heero Kalan on their scooter bearing Registration No.PB-31-9283. They were the employees of Amandeep Bus Service, Sunam. On seeing him, the complainant Amar Singh who was driving the scooter, stopped it and enquired about his health. After talking with him for a short while, they proceeded towards Sunam. He also followed them. When they reached at some distance and a little short of the bridge of Dhandra Wali Dab, in the meantime, Crl. Revision No.584 of 2004 -2- the accused while driving bus bearing Registration No.PB-11-C-9572 rashly and negligently, came from the side of village Cheema and hit the scooter of Amar Singh from behind. Resultantly, the scooter was struck with the bridge. Consequently, the legs of his brother-in-law Amar Singh were amputated and upper part of his body fell in the bushes near the bridge whereas his legs fell on the kutcha land, as such he died at the spot. The offending bus fell into the ditches by the side of the road. The wind screen of the bus was also broken. Thereafter, the accused fled away from the spot. On the aforesaid statement made by Baldev Krishan, FIR Ex.PB/2 was registered and the case was investigated. The Investigating Officer prepared the rough site plan Ex.PC, inquest report Ex.PA, recovery memo Ex.PB vide which he took into possession the registration certificate of the offending vehicle, driving licence of the accused, log book and route permit. He also prepared recovery memo Ex.PF vide which he took into possession the parcel containing clothes of the deceased. On completion of investigation, challan against the accused was presented in the court. Accused was charge sheeted for the offences under Section 304A and 279 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined; Lakhmir Singh (PW 1), Jagroop Singh (PW 2), Puran Chand (PW 3), Daljeet Singh (PW 4), ASI Vijay Kumar (PW 5), Baldev Krishan (PW 6), Balbir Singh (PW 7), Parminder Pal Singh (PW 8), HC Mohinder Singh (PW 9), Dr. Suresh Kumar Singla (PW 10), HC Pawittar Singh (PW 11), Jagjit Singh (PW 12). Crl. Revision No.584 of 2004 -3- When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the allegations and pleaded his false implication in the case. The trial resulted into conviction. His appeal also failed. Heard. The counsel for the accused has vehemently urged that the presence of the complainant and the eye witness at the spot is doubtful. Accused Jagan Nath was not the driver of the ill fated bus on the day of occurrence. To the contrary DAG Punjab has relied upon the statements of Daljeet Singh PW 4 and Baldev Krishan PW 6 and urged that both consistently state that they had identified the accused who fled away from the spot later on. The witnesses had opportunity to see him, therefore, they could well identify him. Even the duty roster proves that the accused was driver of the bus on the date of occurrence. Having heard the rival contentions, it is observed that the duty roster brought on record clearly indicates that accused Jagan Nath was the driver of the bus bearing registration No.PB 11 C 9572 on 12.7.1997 at 5.30 A.M. Route permit Ex.PB shows that the bus was being driven from Budhlada to Chandigarh and there is no dispute with the fact that the place of occurrence falls on the way between Budhlada and Chandigarh. No defence evidence has been led by the accused in order to show that duty roster Ex.PD was not a genuine document. The statement of PW 3 Puran Chand, who deposed that the accused was driver on the said bus, has not been challenged in any manner. The second piece of evidence which proves his identity is the driving licence of the accused, which was recovered at the spot. This part of the evidence has also not been Crl. Revision No.584 of 2004 -4- challenged. PW 6 Baldev Krishan and Daljeet Singh PW 4 have stated in unequivocal words that they were following the deceased on separate scooters and they had seen the bus coming from Budhlada side while being driven rashly and negligently and the accused, without bothering to the scooter going by the roadside, struck his bus against the scooter of the deceased as a result of which the scooterist died. This evidence stands duly corroborated by the post mortem report conducted by Dr. Suresh Kumar Singla, who proved the post mortem report Ex.PW 10/A. Thus, in the present case, the identity of the accused cannot be said to be doubtful. Further, the element of rashness and negligence has been duly proved by the witnesses. The amount of rashness could be assessed from the circumstance that the accused while going beyond his lane struck into his scooter with such a force that the body of Amar Singh was cut into two pieces and one piece fell in the bushes. His scooter was also damaged. The presence of the witnesses at the spot in the given circumstances of the case, also cannot be challenged as the FIR was recorded in the police station within two hours and 20 minutes. The time has spent by the police in completing the formalities, therefore, the FIR could be termed as prompt one as the false story could not be concocted within such a short span of time. No grounds to interfere is found. Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed. (A.N.JINDAL) JUDGE 8th Nov., 2010 akm