GURMUKH SINGH Vs. STATE OF UT CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral)

(2.) THIS is a revision against the judgement of conviction dated 25.04.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class convicting the accused-revision petitioner under Sections 279 and 304 A of Indian Panel Code to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for commission of offence punishable under Section 279 of Indian Penal code and also to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for commission of offence punishable under Section 304-A of Indian Penal code. An appeal against the order of sentence dated 24.04.2007 was dismissed. However, the sentence for the charge under section 304-A of Indian Penal code was further reduced to six months. While challenging the impugned judgement/order of conviction, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no evidence. No independent witness was joined intentionally. It is further stated that PW 10 Nageshwar Parshad, is close relative of the deceased and he in fact only identified the body but was shown as eye witness.

(3.) THE Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal, observed as under: 36. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that there is evidence of DW1 Mahatam Singh that bus was entered into yard at 9.20 P.M. and further DW2 Jang Singh conductor of the bus had testified that no accident had taken place with the bus and bus was entered in the yard at 9.20 P.M. I have considered the statements of these witnesses. It is established that bus was taken into possession on 28.3.2000 by the investigating officer and at that time photographs were taken. Both PW7 photographer Sanjeev Kumar as well as investigating officer PW4 have been cross examined at length. No case is made out that the bus was entered in the CTU yard at 9.20 P.M. rather it is established that appellant made an endeavour to run away from spot but he was apprehended and bus was taken into possession. THE evidence of PW7 has gone unchallenged. It seems that DW1 Mahatam Singh DW2 Jang Singh had concocted false story in order to save their colleague. When the bus was taken into possession near from the spot it was got released on superdari by the CTU it cannot be said that bus had entered the yard at 9.20 P.M.