Criminal Revision No.404 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.404 of 2005 Date of Decision 15.12.2010 Kashmir Singh ...... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Surinder Thakur, Advocate, for Mr.D.S.Pheruman, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent-State. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: Kashmir Singh accused-petitioner (herein referred as 'the accused') has assailed the judgment dated 02.12.2004, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Amritsar, dismissing his appeal against the judgment dated 20.03.2002, passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- under Section 279 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 304-A IPC. The case relates to the accident which occurred on account of the fact that the accused over-loaded the bus to the extent that he allowed the passengers to sit over the roof and then he drove so rashly that it overturned. In brief, the facts are that complainant Baldev Singh (PW5) alongwith his wife Balbir Kaur (PW6) had boarded the bus in question, Criminal Revision No.404 of 2005 2 driven by Kashmir Singh, which was stopped at various places where some passengers alighted. Nirmal Singh was the conductor of the bus. The accused over-loaded the bus to the extent that he allowed the passengers to sit on its roof and he has been driving the bus very rashly and negligently. At about 12:30 p.m., when it reached near the bridge of canal in the revenue limits of village Vallah, the accused even while taking the turn towards bye-pass, did not slow down the speed, as such he lost control, therefore, it turned turtle into the road side pits, thereby causing injuries to number of the passengers. Out of them, Jaswant Singh and Achhar Ram had died at the spot. The injured passengers were shifted to the hospital for treatment. On receipt of the information, ASI Nirmal Singh reached S.G.T.B. Hospital, Amritsar and recorded the statements of complainant Baldev Singh on the basis of which FIR was registered against the accused. On completion of investigation, the accused was challaned aloangwith Nirmal Singh, conductor of the bus. Lateron Nirmal Singh was declared proclaimed offender. Accused Kashmir Singh was charged for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charges, examined Jadge Singh (PW1), Constable Palwinder Singh (PW2), Jagtar Singh (PW3), Hardev Singh (PW4), Jasbir Singh (PW5), Baldev Singh (PW5A), Balbir Kaur (PW6) and Dr.Gurmanjit Rai (PW7). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication. However, he did not lead any evidence in defence. Criminal Revision No.404 of 2005 3 The trial resulted into conviction. His appeal also failed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the contentions with regard to identification of the accused and has stated that it was Nirmal Singh, who may have allowed the passengers to sit over the roof of the bus. It has been further urged that the bus might have accidentally turned turtle but he was not rash. On the other hand, Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab, has urged that the accused was in control of the bus and he was to handle as to what extent the bus was loaded; he well knew that to what capacity the bus was loaded and he also knew that the bus was to be slowed on the turn. He further urged that Jagtar Singh (PW3), who was the occupant of the bus, has stated that it was the accused who was driving the bus at the time of accident, therefore, no question of mistaken identity has arisen. Having heard the rival contentions and having examined the evidence on the record, it transpires that there is no force in the contention, raised by the counsel for the petitioner. Jagtar Singh (PW3), during his cross-examination, has duly stated that it was the petitioner, who was driving the bus at the time of accident. He has further stated that the accused was known to him previously also as he had been frequently travelling in his bus. It is not the case where he had no opportunity to see the accused at the spot. He had boarded the bus and had travelled in it before the accident took place and there was sufficient time for him to see the accused. As such, the identification of the accused stands duly proved. While taking the case from another angle, both the Courts below have returned the findings of fact that the petitioner had caused the Criminal Revision No.404 of 2005 4 accident, therefore, these findings cannot be disturbed except on the grounds of perversity, material illegality or manifest error apparent on the record in the judgment but no such illegality much less perversity in the impugned judgment has been indicated. Resultantly, this petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 15.12.2010 mamta-II