STATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION Vs. DESH RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 22nd March, 1985, of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, whereby the learned Metropolitan Magistrate acquitted the respondent/accused of charges under Sections 279/304-A IPC. The indictment against the accused/respondent is as follows. On 3rd October, 1979, at about 10.45 a.m. at Laxmi Nagar bus stop the deceased G.J.Singh, who was waiting for his bus, was knocked down by a bus bearing No. DLP 5085, Route No. 304, allegedly driven by the respondent in a rash and negligent manner. The said incident was witnessed by three prosecution witnesses. Constable Bal Kishan, PW-3, was on duty from 8 a.m. to 11 a.m. at Laxmi Nagar Bus Stand. Hansal Rose, PW-2, nephew of the deceased, took the injured to the hospital. Ashok Kumar, PW-1, neighbour of the deceased, went to inform the inmates of house of the deceased. Constable Bal Kishan, PW-3, went to the Police Post Shakar Pur and got recorded the DD No. 14, Ex.PW7/A, wherein it was stated that at about 10.45 a.m. one "bus No. DLP 5058" of route no. 304 came from the Patpar Ganj side and hit against a person aged about 50/55 years and thereafter, the bus driver vamoosed with the bus. The case was marked to SI Mahinder Singh for investigation. SI Mahender Singh arrived at the spot wherein he did not find any eye witness. He could not locate the hospital where the injured had been removed. On the basis of the DD entry, FIR was lodged. After some time, the investigating officer arrived at Jai Prakash Narayan Hospital where the injured had been brought dead by Hansal Rose, PW-2. However, Hansal Rose was not available. The accused was arrested on 23rd October, 1979 and challaned for offences under Sections 279/304-A IPC.

(2.) The trial court acquitted the accused on the following grounds. Firstly, all the three witnesses stated on oath that the accident took place with "bus No. DLP 5085". However, DD entry, Ex.PW7/A and FIR, Ex.PW6/A, mention that the accident took place with "bus No. DLP 5058". The trial court opined that this is a material discrepancy in the prosecution case. Secondly, the bus was taken into possession and the accused was taken into custody on 23rd October, 1979, that is, 19 days after the alleged accident. No explanation is forthcoming as to why there was a long delay in arresting the accused and seizing the bus. Thirdly, the accused suggested to every witness that the accident did not take place with his bus rather it took place with another roadways bus which was coming behind his bus. According to the accused, that bus driver ran away with the bus after hitting the deceased.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the presence of Ashok Kumar, PW-1, and Hansal Rose, PW-2, is open to doubt. He pointed out that they are got up witnesses. He stressed that under these circumstances no reliance should be placed on their testimony. He raised no argument in respect of testimony of Constable Bal Kishan except that number mentioned by him was incorrect. He also drew my attention towards the impugned judgment wherein it is mentioned that the investigating officer did not find any eye witness either on the spot or in the hospital.