CRIMINAL MISC. NO. 595-MA OF 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: December 04, 2009. Parties Name State of Punjab ..APPLICANT VERSUS Ravi Kant ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE JUSTICE MRS. DAYA CHAUDHARY PRESENT: Ms. Gurveen H. Singh, Addl. A.G., Punjab for the applicant. JASBIR SINGH, J. ORDER. State of Punjab has filed this application under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. with a prayer to grant leave to file an appeal against judgment dated June 3, 2009, acquitting the respondent of the charges, framed against him. Process of Criminal Law justice system was started at the instance of Rupinder Kumar, at whose statement, FIR No. 121 of 2000 was registered against the respondent for commission of offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC in Police Station Sahnewal, district Ludhiana. Case of the prosecution, as noted by the trial Court, in para No. 2 of the judgment under challenge, reads thus: “In nutshell, the prosecution story is that on 25.7.2000, ASI CRIMINAL MISC. NO. 595-MA OF 2009 -2- Charanjit Singh along with his police party was present near petrol pump Katani Kalan in connection with patrolling where the complainant Rupinder Kumar along with Gian Singh son of Sital Singh, resident of village Katani Kalan came and gave his statement that he is resident of above said address and they are three brothers and the eldest is Bimal Kumar, next to him is the complainant and the youngest is Ashok Kumar and he along with his brother Bimal Kumar daily went to Ludhiana from their village Katani Kalan for work and his eldest brother Bimal Kumar was working in a factory at Ludhiana and the complainant is learning the work from his maternal uncle at Sarafa Bazar and both of them together went to Ludhiana and in the evening together boarded a bus from Samrala Chowk, Ludhiana for their village Katani Kalan. On 25.7.2000 the complainant along with his brother Bimal Kumar boarded a PRTC bus of Faridkot Depot No. PB 11 N 0762 for coming to their village Katani Kalan that at about 8.30 p.m. the bus driver while driving the bus at very high speed and in a very negligent manner, climbed the bus on the divider on the road situated near village Katani Kalan Ludhiana, i.e. G.T. Road Chandigarh as the result of which bus overturned and the brother of the complainant, Bimal Kumar, fell from the bus on the road and came under the bus when it had overturned. The other passengers of the bus came out after breaking the window panes of the bus which were broken by some shopkeepers and other people who gathered there and took out Bimal Kumar CRIMINAL MISC. NO. 595-MA OF 2009 -3- from beneath the bus who was dead by that time. This accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the said bus by the driver whose name lateron came to the knowledge of the complainant as Ravi Kant son of Mulakh Raj, caste Brahmin resident of Balsuha P.S. Pathankot, District Gurdaspur. When the bus driver came out of the bus then the complainant saw him and while they were taking out Bimal Kumar from beneath the bus then finding opportunity the accused Ravi Kant slipped away leaving behind the bus. Many other passengers also told the bus driver before accident to drive the bus slowly but he kept on driving the bus at very high speed and in a very negligent manner because of which accident occurred and Bimal Kumar died.” On intimation, sent by ASI Charanjit Singh (PW3), FIR was registered against the respondent. The Investigating Officer, on completion of investigation, submitted the final report in Court for trial. The respondent was charge-sheeted under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution produced seven witnesses and also brought on record documentary evidence to prove its case. On conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of the respondent – accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Incriminating material, existing on record, was put to him, which he denied, claimed innocence and false implication. He also led evidence in defence. Counsel for the applicant heard. CRIMINAL MISC. NO. 595-MA OF 2009 -4- This Court is of the opinion that the trial Court was justified in passing the judgment under challenge. The trial Court has rightly held that ASI Charanjit Singh had joined only one independent witness, namely, Jasbir Singh, who also failed to support case of the prosecution in its entirety. In his statement, complainant Rupinder Singh (PW2) also failed to say as to what was the speed of the bus at the time of occurrence. Police reached at the spot after five hours of the accident. PW3 Jasbir Singh has also failed to depose as to how the accident had occurred. The trial Court, on appraisal of evidence, has observed as under: “The pleas of both the counsel were minutely perused. The Ld. APP for the State through his witnesses established the fact that the bus was driven by accused Ravi Kant. The identity of the accused as the driver of the bus was not disputed by the Ld. Defence counsel. As per the arguments of Ld. Defence counsel the only independent witness joined by the prosecution, favoured the prosecution story in his examination-in-chief but in his cross-examination he deposed that he just remained on the spot for 5/7 minutes and bus was moving slowly as it was in very depreciated condition and its speed is about 50/60 Kms/ hour and deceased has not brought the ticket in his presence and he has not seen the deceased falling from the bus and lateron when the eye witness was taken out from the overturned bus he came to know that a person came under the bus and died and further deposed that police recorded his statements on the next day when he went to the spot to find his lost wallet and he cannot tell how many papers the police got signed from him CRIMINAL MISC. NO. 595-MA OF 2009 -5- and no photographer came on the spot in his presence nor any site plan was prepared in his presence by the police. These statements of the sole independent eye witness joined by the prosecution struck at the roots of the prosecution case as the other PW (complainant) is the real brother of the deceased. So, as per the arguments of the Ld. Defence counsel he cannot be called as independent witness. Other witnesses are the formal witnesses. Other major lacuna in the prosecution case is that prosecution has not examined the doctor who has to prove the post-mortem report of the deceased. Also the cross- examination of PW Harbans Singh, Mechanic brought forth a possibility that accident might have occurred due to broken jhula of the Kamanies of the bus and also perusal of the report of mechanic shows that Jhula of rear Kamanies of the bus was broken, so it is the strong possibility that bus has overturned due to this mechanical fault.” This Court is of the view that the opinion, arrived at by the trial Court, is perfectly justified and is based upon evidence on record. Benefit of doubt was rightly given to the respondent – accused. Counsel for the applicant has failed to indicate any misreading of evidence on part of the trial Court, which may necessitate any interference by this Court. View taken by the trial Court is justified. Even in cases where two views are possible, ordinarily, the view taken by the trial Court, in favour of the accused, is to be accepted. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Allarakha K. Mansuri CRIMINAL MISC. NO. 595-MA OF 2009 -6- v. State of Gujarat, 2002 (1) RCR (Criminal) page 748, held that where, in a case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused has to be adopted by the Court. A Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Hansa Singh, 2001(1) RCR (Criminal) page 775, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, has opined as under:- “We are of the opinion that the matter would have to be examined in the light of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 1991(1) SCC 166, which are that interference in an appeal against acquittal would be called for only if the judgment under appeal were perverse or based on a mis-reading of the evidence and merely because the appellate Court was inclined to take a different view, could not be a reason calling for interference.” Counsel for the State has failed to show that the judgment, under challenge, is perverse or based on misreading of evidence on record. In view of facts, mentioned above, the application is dismissed. (JASBIR SINGH) JUDGE ( DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE December 04, 2009. DKC