RAI SINGH Vs. STATE N C T DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was driving a Rajasthan roadways Bus on 2. 9. 1994 at about 5. 00 a. M. and it is alleged that the bus was driven on the wrong side rashly and negligently. In the process, the petitioner is alleged to have hit an unknown person crossing the road, who died on the spot. The petitioner was charged for offences u/s 279/304a IPC and pleaded not guilty and prayed for trial.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that the body of the deceased person was taken for post-mortem and the medical report was placed on record. The prosecution examined seven witnesses, but the only direct evidence is of PW1, Mr. Om Prakash, who is alleged to be an eye witness. Mr. Om Prakash has deposed that he was attending to the nature's call in the morning when he saw the bus being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the petitioner on the wrong side which resulted in the bus hitting the deceased and causing his death on the spot. The witness further deposed that the bus Driver/ petitioner stopped the bus and PW1 detained him till the arrival of the police.

(3.) THE petitioner in his defence appeared and deposed himself. The defence is that the dead body was lying on the road and on seeing the same, the petitioner stopped the bus and, in fact, informed the police by personally going to the police station which was in the vicinity of the accident. The police is alleged to have embroiled the petitioner in the case and produced the eye witness PW1 in support of its case. The defence also examined two other witnesses whose depositions are important for the present case. DW1 is a passenger who claimed that he was travelling in the bus on the date of the accident while DW2 is the Conductor. The statement given by both the witnesses is more or less similar and support the case of the defence that there was a dead body lying on the road when the bus was stopped and the police instead of registering a case, arrested the petitioner and seized his license and the bus and falsely implicated him. DW1 was put a specific question as to whether he had kept the bus ticket, to which he deposed that he should not be expected to retain the bus ticket for a long time as he did not know that such a situation would arise. It may, however, be noted that both the witnesses were brought by the defence and not summoned through the process of the court.