IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No.711-SBA of 1997 Date of decision: 18th January, 2010 State of Punjab … Appellant Versus Gopal Ram … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the appellant. Mr. P.K. Goklani, Advocate for the respondent. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) State of Punjab has filed present appeal against acquittal. They are aggrieved against the acquittal of Gopal Ram, who was tried in case FIR No.161 dated 15.12.1995 registered at Police Station Sadar Malout under Sections 304-A, 279, 337, 338 IPC by the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Malout. The above said FIR was lodged by Harbans Kaur. In the FIR, it was stated that she was married to Gurmit Singh. She had two children. On 15th December, 1995, she along with her mother-in-law and other relations namely Balbir Kaur, Gulab Kaur and Premjit Singh, was going to her village after attending the Bhog ceremony in village Kangan Khera. They were traveling in a Maruti car. Premjit Singh was driving the Maruti car. Sahib Kaur mother-in-law of the complainant was sitting along with the driver. Complainant Harbans Kaur, Balbir Kaur and Gulab Kaur were sitting on the rear seat. At about 3.30 p.m. when they reached near service Criminal Appeal No.711-SBA of 1997 station on the triangular road/G.T. point leading to Abohar – Fazilka – Malout, then a bus bearing registration No.PB-05B-9501 came from the opposite side and caused accident. It was stated that the bus was driven in a rash and negligent manner and the driver of the bus was a clean shaven person. As a result of the accident, Sahib Kaur succumbed to her injuries. The matter was investigated and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted against the accused respondent Gopal Ram. He was charged for offences under Section 279, 304-A IPC. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution examined PW-1 Harbans Kaur. She stated in her examination in chief that she knew the accused as she used to frequently visit Malout to Abohar from her village. She further stated that the bus was being driven by a clean shaven person and the accused is present in the Court. Gulab Kaur appeared as PW-2. She also identified the accused respondent driver of the bus in the Court. Thereafter, PW-6 ASI Bohar Singh Investigating Officer was examined. Other three witnesses examined were PW-3 Dr. Malkit Singh Kingra, PW-4 Dr.R.S. Randhawa and PW-5 Chhinderpal Singh, Photographer. In defence, the accused examined DW-1 Prem Kumar. He stated that the bus was standing and the Maruti car hit the bus, which was stationed near the service station. The trial Court held that in the present case, prosecution failed to prove the identity of the accused and no identification parade was held and in the statement made before the police, complainant had only stated that bus was driven by a clean shaven person. The witness, before whom accused had allegedly made extrajudicial confession, was not examined. The trial Court further held that from the photographs of the accident, prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the bus was 2 Criminal Appeal No.711-SBA of 1997 being driven rashly and negligently by the driver at the time of the occurrence. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab has stated that the witnesses had stated in categoric terms that it was the accused respondent, who was the driver of the bus and caused accident in rash and negligent manner. In the present case, the bus belonged to Jai Gurdev Transport Company. No official of the Transport Company was examined to prove duty roster or the fact that at the relevant time, accused respondent was posted as driver of the bus. The reasoning given by the trial Court regarding acquittal cannot be said to be perverse. The view formulated by the trial Court is one view which is possible. Therefore, this Court in appeal against acquittal, will not cause interference until the view formulated by the trial Court is palpably wrong and perverse. Thus, there is no merit in the present appeal against acquittal and the same is dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE January 18, 2010 rps 3