Crl. Rev. No. 1251 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Crl. Rev. No. 1251 of 2005 Date of decision:- March 28, 2011 Hari Ram ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. J.S.Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Shekhar Mudgal, AAG, Haryana. Gurdev Singh, J (oral) The petitioner/accused – Hari Ram, was convicted by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat, for the offences under Sections 279 and 304A IPC, vide judgment dated 3.6.2004 and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 279 IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of `1,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months under Section 304A IPC. Against that conviction and sentence he preferred an appeal, but the same was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, vide his judgment dated 9.7.2005. Now the present revision has been filed against that conviction and sentence. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 9.12.1998 Dimple Kumar-deceased and his father Krishan Pal PW2 were travelling in bus No. HR-45/1749, which was being driven by the accused. The bus was over- crowded. The accused started driving this bus rashly and negligently on the Crl. Rev. No. 1251 of 2005 -2- Sanoli road. When it reached near the turning of village Kurar, the same was stopped by the accused for enabling the passengers to get down. On account of the rush of the passengers in the bus, Dimple Kumar also got down along with other passengers. When he tried to re-board this bus, the accused started the same at a fast speed as a result of which he slipped from the front window and fell down. He was crushed under the back wheel of the bus. It was only after an alarm was raised by the passengers, the accused stopped the bus after covering some distance. When the complainant came near his son after alighting from the bus, the accused escaped with the bus towards Shamli. As a result of the injuries so received by Dimple Kumar, he died at the spot itself. Randhir Singh Head Constable PW8 was present in bus stand of Chhajpur. The complainant went to him at that place and made his statement Ex.PA about this accident. The head constable after making endorsement Ex.P8/A upon the same sent that to the police station and on the basis thereof, formal FIR Ex.PW6/A was recorded against the accused by Harjinder Singh ASI PW6, under Sections 279 and 304A IPC. The head constable came to the place of accident and after inspecting the same prepared the rough site plan Ex.PW8/B with correct marginal notes. He prepared the inquest report in respect of the dead body of the deceased and sent the same for post mortem examination. The autopsy on the dead body was performed by the doctor, who found ante- mortem injuries on the same and gave his opinion that the cause of death was shock and hemorrhage, due to those injuries to the vital organs and the same were sufficient to casue the death in the ordinary course of nature. The accused was arrested on 10.12.1998. He produced his own driving Crl. Rev. No. 1251 of 2005 -3- license and the registration certificate of the bus before the head constable and those were taken into possession, vide memo Ex.PW4/A. The bus in question was also produced by him. The same was mechanically tested by Thakur Lal Mechanic PW1 and was found to be in mechanical order. About that test the mechanic gave his report Ex.PW1/A. After the completion of the investigation, the challan was put in before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, who found sufficient grounds for presuming that the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A IPC. He was charged accordingly, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined Thakur Lal Mechanic PW1, Krishan Lal complainant PW2, Jai Pal PW3, Naresh Kumar PW4, Dr. Jaya Goel PW5, SI Rajinder Singh PW6, Maya Ram PW7 and ASI Randhir Singh PW8. After the prosecution closed its evidence the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence were put to him in order to enable him to explain the same. He denied all those circumstances and pleaded his innocence. He stated that neither the bus was being driven by him rashly and negligently nor any accident was caused by him and that false case was made against him by the complainant in connivence with the police. He was called upon to enter on his defence, but he did not produce any evidence in his defence. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the accused that the deceased was already in the bus and had fallen as his foot had slipped while he was standing in the front window. It cannot be held, on the basis of Crl. Rev. No. 1251 of 2005 -4- evidence produced by the prosecution, that he had fallen down from the bus as a result of rash and negligent driving by the accused. He further submitted that for corroborating the statement of Krishan Lal complainant PW2, the prosecution examined Jaipal PW3, whose presence at the spot was correctly doubted by the trial Court. The conviction of the accused could not have been recorded on the solitary statement of the complainant, as the prosecution had the opportunity to examine the passengers of the bus for corroborating the statement of that witness. He prayed for the acquittal of the accused and in the alternative for releasing him on probation. The way in which the accused cross-examined Krishan Pal complainant PW2, it is very much clear that he was the driver on the bus in question and Dimple Kumar had fallen down from this bus. According to him, he had fallen from the bus on account of his own negligence as he tried to board the bus when it was already moving. A minute perusal of the statement of the complainant makes it very much clear that the deceased had to get down from the bus on account of the over-crowding. Other passengers wanted to alight from the same, when it was stopped on the turning of Kurar and when he was boarding the same again the bus was started by the accued as a result of which he fell down and came under the back wheel of the bus. No doubt, the prosecution has not examined any passenger of the bus for corroborating his statement, but there is no rule of law that before placing reliance on the solitary statement of a witness, if the same is found to be trustworthy and reliable, it must be corroborated by some other evidence. Presence of the complainant cannot be doubted at the time of accident as, according to him, the accident had taken place at about Crl. Rev. No. 1251 of 2005 -5- 4.00 PM and he made a statement before Randhir Singh PW8 at 5.15 PM. In such a short period there was no possibility with him to concoct a false version against the accused. The accused should not have started the bus when the deceased was still boarding it. He should have waited for blowing of the whistle by the conductor of the bus before starting it. It was asked from the complainant PW2 during his cross-examination twice as to whether the conductor had blown the whistle and both the time he stated that no such whistle was blown by the conductor. Nothing has crept in the cross- examination of the complainant, which may create any doubt in his testimony. He has made a trustworthy statement and no illegality was committed by the trial Court or appellate Court while recording conviction of the accused on the basis of his sole testimony. There is no ground for interfering with the finding of conviction so recorded by the the trial Court and upheld by the appellate Court, while exercising the revisional Court. Therefore, the conviction of the accused is upheld. The nature of the offence and the circumstances in which the same was committed are such that I do not think it proper and expedient to release the accused on probation. A precious life could have been saved, in case he had been careful, while driving the bus. So much so, he did not show any courtsey to stop the bus after the deceased had come under the wheel thereof. It was only after the passengers and the complainant raised an alarm, that he stopped the bus and when the complainant came down to look after his son, he escaped with the bus, instead of taking the deceased to the hospital for his treatment. Under these circumstances, he is not entitled Crl. Rev. No. 1251 of 2005 -6- to any indulgence of this Court. There is no merit in the revision petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. The petitioner be taken into custody for undergoing the sentence so imposed upon him. Records be returned forthwith. March 28, 2011 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge