In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 779 of 2002 Date of decision: November 18, 2008 Davinder Singh ... Petitioner versus State of Punjab ... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Rawat, AAG, Punjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 19.3.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur dismissing the appeal of the accused-petitioner Davinder Singh (herein referred to as 'the petitioner') against the judgment dated 4.2.2000 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Batala convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.200/- under Section 304-A IPC. In nutshell, the facts in brief are that on 22.12.1996 at about 3.45 p.m. Baljit Singh complainant (herein referred to as 'the complainant') boarded the bus bearing registration No.PB-06-1212 going from Batala to Amritsar. Jagvinder Singh, his brother, who was helper in the said bus was also travelling. At about 4.00 p.m. when the petitioner while driving the bus reached a little ahead of bus stand Ghasitpur, the petitioner had suddenly accelerated the speed of the bus. He had taken his head out from the driver side window and was looking backward, resultantly he lost control over the bus and the bus turned turtle. As a result of the impact of the accident, Jagvinder Sigh was crushed and died at the spot. The other passengers also received injuries. On the aforesaid statement of the complainant, the case was registered, investigated and on completion of the investigation challan was presented in the Court. Crl. Revision No. 779 of 2002 -2- *** Consequently, he was charged under Sections 279/338/304-A IPC to which he opted to contest. During trial, the prosecution examined Dr. K.K. Singh (PW1) Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Batala who proved the postmortem report of the deceased Jagvinder Singh Ex.PA and that of Sukhwinder Singh Ex.PH. Dalbir Singh (PW2) Mechanic proved his test report Ex.PB of the bus. Kuldip Singh Photographer (PW3), Baljit Singh complainant (PW4), Mohinder Singh (PW5) father of the deceased Jagvinder Singh proved the inquest report Ex.PD. Gian Singh (PW6) proved the site plan Ex.PD, HC Kuldip Singh (PW7) proved the recovery memos Ex.PF and Ex.PG and ASI Balwinder Kumar (PW8) is the Investigating Officer. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the petitioner denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in the case. However, he led no evidence in defence. Ultimately the trial ended in conviction. The appeal was also dismissed. Arguments heard. Record perused. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset has not urged much over the manner in which the accident took place but he has taken me through the statement of Dalbir Singh (PW2) Mechanic of the Punjab Roadways, Batala who proved the mechanical report Ex.PD in order to contend that the accident took place as a result of collapse of the main belt and the side belt and not due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. He further deposed that if any of the belt used in the engine are broken then bus could turn turtle. The main belt of the front tyre as well as the second belt were found broken, therefore, the accident did not take place due to the rash and negligent driving by the petitioner but it was the act of God. Having pondered over the arguments and having examined the evidence, it transpires that the witnesses Baljit Singh (PW4) and Gian Singh (PW6) are contradictory in their statements regarding the manner of the accident. Baljit Singh (PW4) has stated that when the accused was driving the bus at the fast speed, he was looking backwards, therefore, the bus went Crl. Revision No. 779 of 2002 -3- *** out of control and as such turned turtle, whereas, Gian Singh (PW6) has stated that the petitioner while driving the bus rashly and negligently took the same to the opposite side and struck in the ditches, resultantly the bus turned turtle. Admittedly, the bus did not struck against any vehicle or any such conveyance or vessel coming on its front. Though Gian Singh (PW6) has stated that the petitioner was driving the bus at a fast speed, but he has not given the speed of the bus. To the contrary, Baljit Singh (PW4) has stated that since the petitioner was looking backward, therefore, the bus went out of control but he has not talked about the rash driving. The site plan Ex.PJ reflects that the bus did not fell in the ditches but it had turned on the kacha berm by covering half of the kacha berm. All this goes to show that the witnesses have failed the depict the manner in which the accident had taken place, rather the accident appears to have taken place due to the breaking of the belts which fault purely could be attributed to the owner of the bus who had brought the same on the road with defective belts. Dalbir Singh Mechanic (PW2) also admits that if belts break down then it could topple on one side. Nothing has been shown on the record if some untoward could happen due to looking backward by the petitioner. The Appellate Court has not examined the aforesaid aspect of the case. As such, it would have to be observed that the prosecution has failed to prove the rashness and negligence of the petitioner in the commission of the crime, consequently, interference in the impugned judgment has become inevitable. Resultantly, I accept the petition, set aside the impugned judgment, acquit the petitioner of the charges framed against him and direct that he be set at liberty forthwith. Bail bond and surety bond furnished by the petitioner stand discharged. Fine, if any deposited by him, be refunded. November 18, 2008 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge