Crl. Revision No.1185 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.1185 of 2002 Date of decision : 31.03.2010 Ravi alias Ravinder Singh .... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Tapan Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Manish Deswal, DAG, Haryana. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been filed by Ravi alias Ravinder Singh who was named as accused in case FIR No.72 dated 26.4.1990 registered at Police Station Bawani Khera under Sections 279/304-A/337/427 IPC. Petitioner was found guilty of offence under Section 279 & 304-A IPC by the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Siwani at Bhiwani vide its judgment and order dated 21.12.1999 and was sentenced to undergo RI for six months under Section 279 IPC and one year under Section 304-A IPC and also to pay a fine of Rs.800/- and in default whereof to further undergo for three months. Aggrieved against the impugned judgment and order, petitioner filed an appeal. The Appellate Court while upholding the Crl. Revision No.1185 of 2002 -2- conviction and maintaining the sentence dismissed the appeal. FIR in the present case was lodged by PW-3 Balbir Singh. The version set out in the FIR is that on 26.4.1990 Balbir Singh was a driver of Haryana Roadways bus No.HR-20/9868. He, along with Dharampal conductor, was driving a bus, carrying passengers and were coming from Delhi to Hisar. When they reached near village Mundhal, from the opposite side a tanker bearing No.HYG-2467 came from Hisar. He stated that the petitioner was driving the same at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner. The tanker was coming in a zig zag manner. Balbir Singh stopped the bus. However, tanker had struck against left side of the bus due to which it turned turtle and the passengers received injuries. Ram Kumar, who was conductor of the offending tanker No.HYG-2467, which was driven by the petitioner, died at the spot. Sh. Tapan Kumar, Advocate appearing for the petitioner had raised two questions for the consideration of this Court:- 1. Whether prosecution has proved identity of the petitioner as driver of the offending tanker? 2. Whether there is sufficient reliable evidence to infer that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner who was a driver of the tanker? In the present case, co-passenger of the petitioner had died in the accident. Accident had occurred with the bus. To prove the factum of rash and negligent driving, Balbir Singh driver of the bus – complainant author of the FIR has appeared as PW-3. His testimony Crl. Revision No.1185 of 2002 -3- is corroborated by Dharampal PW-1 conductor of the bus . Only one passanger Gaje Singh was examined as PW-7. He has not supported the prosecution version. He has stated that he has no knowledge regarding the accident. This witness was declared hostile. Both Balbir Singh PW-3 and Dharampal PW-1 are interested witnesses. Balbir Singh is driver of the bus which has caused death of the co-passenger of the petitioner. Therefore the witnesses are bound to exonerate themselves and exaggerate the role of the vehicle coming from opposite side in order to absolve themselves. It is stated that by the witnesses that they had stopped the bus when the two vehicles collided with each other. It is natural for the driver of the one vehicle to state that the driver of the other vehicle was at fault. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that in the accident, conductor of the tanker driven by the petitioner had died. Therefore, grievance, if any, was of the tanker driver and for that if any person could be held liable, was none-else but the driver of the bus. Driver of the bus is author of the complaint - FIR. It is natural for him to shift the criminal liability upon driver of the other vehicle. In these circumstances, it is not safe to rely upon the testimonies of PW-3 Balbir Singh and PW-1 Dharampal conductor of the bus, especially when no passenger of bus has come forward to blame petitioner driver of the tanker. Furthermore, petitioner was not known to the witnesses earlier. He was for the first time identified in the Court. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that it is not safe to convict the accused and he can be granted benefit of doubt as a matter of abundant caution. Crl. Revision No.1185 of 2002 -4- Present revision petition is accepted. Conviction pronounced by both the Courts below is set aside. Petitioner is acquitted of the charges. (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) 31.03.2010 JUDGE manju