IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 2552 of 2004 Date of decision: 25.10.2010 Ramesh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. S.K. Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Haryana. **** A.N. JINDAL, J.(ORAL) This petition has arisen out of the judgment dated 27.11.2004 passed by the First Appellate Court dismissing the appeal against the judgement dated 27/28.8.2003 passed by the JMIC, Rohtak, convicting and sentencing the accused-petitioner (herein referred as 'the accused') to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months u/s 279 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 500/- u/s 304-A IPC. Factual matrix of the case is that on 13.1.1996 at about 1:30 p.m., Rajinder Singh, alongwith his wife Anita were going on a scooter. When he reached near village Bohar, the petitioner while driving Haryana Roadways bus bearing registration No. HR- 10A/1674 rashly and negligently came from the opposite side at a very high speed. On seeing the bus, the complainant, in order to save himself took his scooter on the kacha berm. Suddenly, some Crl. Revision No. 2552 of 2004 -2- part of cloth of his wife(sitting on the pillion) got entangled in the scooter, resultantly, he fell on the kacha path whereas, his wife fell on the road. In the meantime, the accused ran the said bus over Anita, resultantly, she died. Case was registered and investigated, ultimately, the trial resulted into conviction. Heard. If this aforesaid version is accepted, even then the accused can't be said to be rash or negligent in his acts. PW-3 Rajinder Singh took the scooter on Katcha path and he never knew that the cloth of his wife would be entangled in the scooter and she would fall down. Admittedly, Anita fell down from the scooter for the reason that some clothes were entangled in the scooter. The accused also was not supposed to know that Anita would come in front of the tyre of the bus. The period between her fall and the period of the bus was so short that if the accused would have tried his best to stop the bus he could not avert the accident. It was by chance that Anita fell down and the bus ran over her. Therefore, in these circumstances, accused cannot be fastened with liability by holding him to be rash and negligent. Furthermore, the accused after stopping the bus made his best efforts to save the deceased. Rajinder Singh, admits that the accused himself took Anita to the Hospital for treatment. Umed Singh (PW-I) is not an eye witness of the accident as he states that he came to know about the accident later on. That apart, the prosecution has failed to examine the doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the Anita. The Crl. Revision No. 2552 of 2004 -3- First Appellate/Trial Court has misread the evidence of Rajinder Singh while recording conviction of the petitioner. Nothing has been stated by Rajinder Singh, complainant if the driver brought the bus on the wrong side and hit the scooter. He has stated that accused was driving the bus at very high speed, but the speed of the bus has not been described by him. Under these circumstances the Courts below appear to have misread the evidence and have not taken the aforesaid aspects into consideration as such interference in the impugned judgment at my end has become inevitable. Resultantly this revision petition is accepted, impugned judgment is set aside, the accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him and is directed to be set at liberty forthwith. Bail bond and surety bond furnished by him stand discharged. Fine, if any deposited by him, be refunded. (A.N. JINDAL) 25.10.2010 JUDGE Poonam(II)