DHARAM PAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 28. 8. 1992 at about 9. 00 PM on the Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Vihar an accident had occurred between tanker No. DHL 2965 and a TSR No. DL 1r 5517. Two persons namely Mahendra Singh and Surinder Pal Singh had succumbed to their death. As per the verskion of the prosecution the offending tanker was being driven by the petitioner Dharam Pal. The eye-witness account of PW-1 Gurdyal Singh had found favour with the Trial Court.

(2.) PW-1 had on oath deposed that on 28. 8. 1992 at about 9. 00 PM he was travelling in his car on the Nelson Mandela Road; after crossing the Vasant continental about 1 km. ahead towards Vasant Kunj, a TSR No. DL1r 5517 was going ahead of his car; a water tanker No. DHL 2965 came at a fast speed from the side of Vasant Kunj being driven in the middle of the road, the tanker all of a sudden turned towards the right and hit against the TSR and then turned towards the left. PW-1 managed to save himself and stopped his car on the left side of the road; the tsr was over-run by the tanker; the TSR had come under the front wheel of the tanker; there was one passenger and one driver in the TSR; one being a sikh and another being a mona; the driver was a mona. PW-1 has further deposed that the petitioner had come down from the truck; he stood at the spot for about one or two minutes and thereafter fled away. Within 5-7 minutes the PCR van had reached the spot who removed the injured to the hospital. In his cross-examination PW-1 has stated that the incident had occurred at about 8. 45 PM. There was no tail light on the TSR which was ahead of him. The witness has further admitted that he cannot say whether there is a tail light on the TSR or not as the head light was falling on his eyes from the front and due to this nothing was visible. He has further stated that it was dark; the head light was coming from the opposite direction; there was no street light at that time. PW-1 had admitted that he has seen the accused for half a minute. His statement was recorded on the same day i. e. on 28. 8. 1992. PW-1 has further stated that the after the incident he had identified the driver in the court. He had not given any description of the accused to the police; in his presence no site plan was prepared. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely as the victim was related to him.

(3.) SI Kaushal Raj, the Investigating Officer has been examined as PW-9. He has on oath deposed that he had met the eye-witness Gurdyal Singh at the spot and at his pointing out he had prepared site plan Ex. PW-9/d. This version of PW-9 is not in conformity with the version of PW-1 who has stated that no site plan was prepared at this instance. PW-9 has further deposed that owner of the truck Ashok kumar had been summoned pursuant to a notice under Section 133 of the Motor vehicle Act. The said notice has been proved as PW-9/g and the reply of Ashok kumar is at Mark X. Since the accused has fled away from the spot he was arrested three days later i. e. on 31. 8. 1992. PW-9 has further deposed that accused was identified by Gurdyal Singh who had come to the police station and his statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. was recorded. In his cross-examination PW-9 has stated that he did not get the TIP of the accused conducted. He denied the suggestion that he had arrested the accused on the saying of the owner or that the accused was not the driver of the offending tanker.