Criminal Revision No. 1 of 1996 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH *** Criminal Revision No. 1 of 1996 Date of decision: 25th January, 2008 Balwinder Singh ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent ... Present: Mr. D. P. S. Kahlon, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A. S. Brar, DAG Punjab for the respondent-State. ... CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL .. HARBANS LAL, J This revision has been directed against the judgment/order of sentence dated 8.9.1995 rendered by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot, whereby he convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs.250/- or in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 279 of I.P.C. and further sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,750/- and in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 304-A of IPC, with a further Criminal Revision No. 1 of 1996 2 direction that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently, as well as the judgment dated 20.12.1995 vide which the sentence under Section 304-A of IPC was reduced to one year rigorous imprisonment and the appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot. The minimal facts are that on 1.2.1993, Dalip Singh deceased had gone to Village Habib Wala, District Ferozepur, to see his maternal uncle. During those days, he was employed as a Clerk in the Employment Exchange, Faridkot. On 26.2.1993, Raj Singh, complainant and his cousin Kartar Singh were to go to District Jail, Faridkot, to meet one of their relative. They boarded a bus along with Dalip Singh deceased for going to Faridkot. He told the complainant that he wanted to show his office to him so that he may come to him in case of need. Thereafter, they boarded Bus No. PB-12-A-8916 at Bus Stand, Faridkot, which was going to Bathinda and was being driven by the accused. When this bus neared the Bus Stand Sadar, Faridkot, the deceased went near the front window followed by the complainant and Kartar Singh, he asked the accused to drop them at that place. The driver replied that the bus being of long route cannot be stopped there. On further request of the deceased, the speed of the bus was slowed down by the accused. The moment the deceased opened the window for alighting from the bus, the accused abruptly accelerated the speed, as a result of which the deceased fell down and was run over under the wheel of the bus. The conductor of the bus told the accused that one person had come under wheel of the bus. Then, the accused stopped the bus and fled away from the spot. When the complainant, along with Kartar Singh, descended from the bus, they found that head of the deceased has been crushed under the wheel of the bus. When the complainant was on his way to the Police Criminal Revision No. 1 of 1996 3 Station to lodge the report, he came across with Shamsher Singh ASI, who recorded his statement, Ex.PW6/A. After making his endorsement, the aforesaid ASI sent the same to the Police Station, where on its basis, formal F.I.R. was recorded. Thereafter, the said ASI accompanied by other police officials, came at the spot, prepared the rough site-plan showing the place of accident with correct marginal notes, got the place of accident photographed, took the bus, a piece of cloth stained with blood, a purse containing currency notes worth Rs.55/- into possession, prepared the inquest report and sent the dead body to the Medical College, Faridkot, for post-mortem examination. The clothes which were removed from the dead body were produced before the aforesaid ASI, who took the same into possession. He deposited the case property with the MHC. The accused was arrested on 3.2.1993. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was laid in the Court for trial of the accused. The accused was charged under Section 279 as well as Section 304-A of IPC to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate its allegations, the prosecution has examined PW-1 Dr. K. K. Aggarwal, PW-2 Vinod Kumar Mechanic, PW-3 Jaswant Singh Photographer, PW-4 Sardool Singh, PW-5 Surjit Singh Inspector, PW-6 Raj Singh, PW-7 Inspector Shamsher Singh, PW-8 Kartar Singh, PW-9 Mukhtiar Singh, PW-10 Gurdip Singh duty Clerk and closed its evidence. When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against him. He came up with the plea that Criminal Revision No. 1 of 1996 4 Dalip Singh deceased boarded his bus at Bus Stand, Faridkot, without passenger ticket and without asking the conductor. When the bus reached at the stop, two carts of chaff were going towards Kotkapura. He tried to overtake those carts at slow speed. At that time the deceased tried to alight from the bus without making any request to him or the conductor. In the attempt, he struck against the cart and came under the same. This accident took place on account of negligence of the deceased himself. He had narrated all these facts before the Police and even the passengers. He examined Didar Singh-DW-1, Darshan Singh Conductor- DW-2, Chanan Ram Driver, DW-3, Kabal Singh DW-4 and closed his defence. After hearing the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused, as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved with his conviction/sentence, the accused preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the Court of learned Additional sessions Judge, Faridkot, vide his judgment dated 20.12.1995. Still feeling dissatisfied with the same, he has filed this revision. I have heard Mr. D.P.S.Kahlon, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. S. Brar, learned Deputy Advocate General,Punjab. Mr. D.P.S.Kahlon, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted with great eloquence that Raj Singh as well as Kartar Singh, P.Ws claimed to have witnessed the accident but as is borne out from the evidence on record, they were not present at the time of alleged accident and their presence has been manipulated later on. He further argued that a meticulous perusal of the inquest report too reveals that the same was not attested by the aforesaid witnesses and the dead body was identified by the close Criminal Revision No. 1 of 1996 5 relative Mukhtiar Singh of the deceased and not by these witnesses. He further pressed into service that as transpires from the impugned judgment, learned trial Magistrate has not discussed the evidence of defence witnesses who have clearly testified that the accident had occurred due to negligence of the deceased and in these premises, the impugned judgment/order of sentence is liable to be set aside. To controvert these submissions, Mr. A.S.Brar, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, contended that the accident has been admitted by the petitioner and that being so the above arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner pale into insignificance. I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions. The petitioner in his statutory statement has come up with the plea that the deceased had come under the wheel of the carts which were going on the road. The question to be determined herein is as to whether the petitioner was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle. Dr. K.K.Aggarwal, PW-1, who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Dalip Singh, has deposed that in his opinion, the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and could be the result of vehicular accident. Raj Singh, PW-6 has solemnly affirmed that when the bus reached near the Police Station Sadar, Dalip Singh asked the driver as well as the conductor to stop the bus as they both were to alight there and the driver applied the brake and when Dalip Singh opened the window of the bus, the driver moved the bus and as its result Dalip Singh fell down and came under the wheel of the bus and succumbed to the injuries at the spot. In identical terms is the statement of Kartar Singh,PW-8. They could not be impeached during their cross- Criminal Revision No. 1 of 1996 6 examination. The petitioner has also admitted that the deceased was travelling in his bus. Didar Singh, DW-1 has stated that he was also travelling in the same bus and that when the same covered some distance, ahead of Police Station Sadar, three carts were moving ahead of the bus and when the driver made an attempt to cross the same, Dalip Singh opened the window all of a sudden and got down from the bus and he struck against those carts and fell down on the ground. DW-2, Darshan Singh who was conductor of the bus, has also stated in identical terms. This version given by these defence witnesses fails to inspire confidence for the reason that the deceased would not have run the risk to get down from the bus when it was in the process of overtaking the carts going ahead. Chanan Ram, Driver DW-3 has deposed that he has experience of driving the bus of about 24 years and that whenever the bus is stopped, it is started again by putting in the first gear and the maximum speed which can be gained in that gear is 5- 7 kms. per hour; that the passengers alighting from the bus after the same is being stopped and then started again, can come under the wheel of the bus only when he does so intentionally. This witness has been examined to prove that as per his experience being a Driver, the deceased Dalip Singh could not come under the hind wheel of the bus in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. This witness being a co-professional, it was not difficult for the petitioner to hire his services to depose in his favour. His testimony in no manner belies the ocular account tendered by the above referred witnessrd. Kabal Singh, DW-4 has merely proved the way-bills relating to Darshan Singh of Punjab Roadways, Patti. So, his testimony too in no manner advances the cause of the petitioner. There is nothing on record to show that the witnesses who have tendered the ocular account of the Criminal Revision No. 1 of 1996 7 accident were in any manner inimically disposed towards the petitioner. There being no infirmity in their cross-examination,their statements can be relied upon without any demur. The prosecution case cannot be thrown over board merely because of the fact that the inquest proceedings were not attested by the eye witnesses. Too often, the dead body is identified by the close relatives in akin cases as has been done in the instant case. In view of the foregoing discussion,it is held that the judgments recorded by the Courts below do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity calling for interference therein. The sentence inflicted upon the petitioner is not on the higher side. So, there is no scope for reduction in it. Sequelly, this revision is dismissed. A certified copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot, for procuring the presence of the petitioner and for sending him to the Jail to serve out the remaining sentence. ( HARBANS LAL ) JUDGE 25th January, 2008 RS