HARI RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner/accused - Hari Ram, was convicted by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat, for the offences under Sections 279 and 304A IPC, vide judgment dated 3.6.2004 and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 279 IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months under Section 304A IPC. Against that conviction and sentence he preferred an appeal, but the same was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, vide his judgment dated 9.7.2005. Now the present revision has been filed against that conviction and sentence.

(2.) THE prosecution story, in brief, is that on 9.12.1998 Dimple Kumar -deceased and his father Krishan Pal P.W. 2 were travelling in bus No. HR -45/1749, which was being driven by the accused. The bus was overcrowded. The accused started driving this bus rashly and negligently on the Sanoli road. When it reached near the turning of village Kurar, the same was stopped by the accused for enabling the passengers to get down. On account of the rush of the passengers in the bus, Dimple Kumar also got down along with other passengers. When he tried to re -board this bus, the accused started the same at a fast speed as a result of which he slipped from the front window and fell down. He was crushed under the back wheel of the bus. It was only after an alarm was raised by the passengers, the accused stopped the bus after covering some distance. When the complainant came near his son after alighting from the bus, the accused escaped with the bus towards Shamli. As a result of the injuries so received by Dimple Kumar, he died at the spot itself. Randhir Singh Head Constable P.W. 8 was present in bus stand of Chhajpur. The complainant went to him at that place and made his statement Ex. PA about this accident. The head constable after making endorsement Ex. P8/A upon the same sent that to the police station and on the basis thereof, formal FIR Ex. P.W. 6/A was recorded against the accused by Harjinder Singh ASI P.W. 6, under Sections 279 and 304A IPC. The head constable came to the place of accident and after inspecting the same prepared the rough site plan Ex. P.W. 8/B with correct marginal notes. He prepared the inquest report in respect of the dead body of the deceased and sent the same for post mortem examination. The autopsy on the dead body was performed by the doctor, who found ante -mortem injuries on the same and gave his opinion that the cause of death was shock and hemorrhage, due to those injuries to the vital organs and the same were sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary course of nature. The accused was arrested on 10.12.1998. He produced his own driving license and the registration certificate of the bus before the head constable and those were taken into possession, vide memo Ex. P.W. 4/A. The bus in question was also produced by him. The same was mechanically tested by Thakur Lal Mechanic P.W. 1 and was found to be in mechanical order. About that test the mechanic gave his report Ex. P.W. 1/A. After the completion of the investigation, the challan was put in before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, who found sufficient grounds for presuming that the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A IPC. He was charged accordingly, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined Thakur Lal Mechanic P.W. 1, Krishan Lal complainant P.W. 2, Jai Pal P.W. 3, Naresh Kumar P.W. 4, Dr. Jaya Goel P.W. 5, SI Rajinder Singh P.W. 6, Maya Ram P.W. 7 and ASI Randhir Singh P.W. 8. After the prosecution closed its evidence the accused was examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure The incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence were put to him in order to enable him to explain the same. He denied all those circumstances and pleaded his innocence. He stated that neither the bus was being driven by him rashly and negligently nor any accident was caused by him and that false case was made against him by the complainant in connivance with the police. He was called upon to enter on his defence, but he did not produce any evidence in his defence.

(3.) IT has been submitted by learned Counsel for the accused that the deceased was already in the bus and had fallen as his foot had slipped while he was standing in the front window. It cannot be held, on the basis of evidence produced by the prosecution, that he had fallen down from the bus as a result of rash and negligent driving by the accused. He further submitted that for corroborating the statement of Krishan Lal complainant P.W. 2, the prosecution examined Jaipal P.W. 3, whose presence at the spot was correctly doubted by the trial Court. The conviction of the accused could not have been recorded on the solitary statement of the complainant, as the prosecution had the opportunity to examine the passengers of the bus for corroborating the statement of that witness. He prayed for the acquittal of the accused and in the alternative for releasing him on probation.