AMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision under Ss. 397/401, Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner challenges the concurrent findings of the Courts by which he was convicted of the offences under Ss. 279/304-A, Indian Penal code (IPC) and sentenced to undergo six months' simple imprisonment (for the offence under S. 279) and one year's simple imprisonment (for the offence under S. 304-A ).

(2.) THE facts are that according to the prosecution on 13-9-1999 at 10 a. m. , at a main 100 ft. road, the petitioner was found driving a bus in a rash and negligent manner. This led to an accident in which one joginder Singh, a by-stander, in the bus stand, was struck and received fatal injuries. In support of its case, the prosecution relied upon the deposition of 12 witnesses. It was alleged that a Constable, one Niranjan (P. W. 11) removed the injured to the hospital. Being an eye-witness, he deposed about his presence on duty at the concerned bus stand when at about 10 : 10 a. m. , the bus driven by the petitioner, proceeded very fast and hit a person standing there. The bus sped away. He identified the bus number and narrated how a PCR van arrived at the spot, how he took the injured to the hospital and later identified the driver of the bus, i. e. the petitioner. This witness as well as all other prosecution witnesses were cross-examined. The trial Court, by its judgment dated 7-8-2006 convicted the petitioner and awarded the sentence impugned. The appeal of the petitioner before the Additional Sessions Judge was rejected on 28-4-2007.

(3.) LEARNED counsel contended that the judgments of the Courts below are vitiated because they have believed the conjectures and surmises of the prosecution. It was contended that the strongest eye-witness P. W. 11 was a planted witness. The efforts of the defence, i. e. the petitioner to prove that he was in fact not present at the site by production of the duty roster despite an application under S. 311, Cr. P. C. , were frustrated. It was contended that if this course had been adopted, the petitioner would have conclusively proved that P. W. 11 was not at the site and could not, therefore, have claimed to be an eye-witness.