Crl. Revision No. 1633 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 1633 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: December 6, 2011 Tara Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Manu K. Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.S. Jattana, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner was allegedly driving a bus, which killed a person while he was alighting from another bus. Allegation also is that the petitioner has taken the bus on the wrong side and hit the person, who was getting down from another bus. Counsel for the petitioner has raised number of submissions in support of his plea that the conviction as recorded would not be sustainable on the basis of evidence. The counsel first contends that there is no identification parade held and the petitioner was identified by the witnesses in the Court for the first time. Counsel further submits that there was no damage seen on the vehicle driven by the petitioner as per the technical inspection report. Crl. Revision No. 1633 of 2011 -2- The other submission made is that the injuries, which were caused to the injured would not show that the victim was crushed with the bus driven by the petitioner. I am not impressed with any of the arguments so raised. The petitioner being driver of the vehicle was identified before the Court and not holding identification parade is a fact, which is insignificant. In any case, identification parade even if held cannot be taken a substantive evidence to make any difference in the case of the prosecution. The submission made by the petitioner was duly considered by the appellate Court. Raghbir Dass-complainant (PW-8) was examined as an eye-witness to the accident. The accident took place on PAP Chowk, on T Point when Raghbir Dass along with Kirpal Chand had alighted from the bus. Place of action is a busy place and it could be expected by the driver of a bus to drive the same with circumspection and caution. Kirpal Chand and others were together and going to Ludhiana to attend the cremation of their uncle. Thus, the persons, who were accompanying Kirpal Chand were natural witnesses to this accident. The presence of other person was, thus, considered probable and they have fully corroborated the version of the prosecution. Ragbir Dass (PW-8) has identified the petitioner in the course of trial. The accident took place at about 3.30 p.m. The complainant with the help of his companion shifted the injured to Civil Hospital, Jalandhar. After some time the complainant succumbed to the injuries suffered by him. Crl. Revision No. 1633 of 2011 -3- There is no reason for the complainant to falsely implicate the petitioner. The petitioner, in my view, is relying on technicalities to get out of rigors of law. He could not produce any record that he was not the driver of the vehicle at the relevant time. In fact, the petitioner had produced in his defence the evidence in the form of Ex.DX and Ex. DY, which were the duty roster and a daily duty register pertaining to duty on 26.2.2002. As per these documents, the petitioner detailed on duty to drive a bus bearing No.PB-12-C- 9167, which was coming from Katra to Ludhiana. These documents rather show that the petitioner was driving the bus. The statement that bus could not have covered a distance of 706 kms and it was started at 8.00 a.m. is a circumstance, which is not in any way will fully establish that the petitioner was not driving the bus and the accident was not caused with the bus driven by him. There is no merit in the pleas raised by the counsel for the petitioner. No case for interference is made out. Dismissed. December 06, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE