STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. SURINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that Shanti Devi, wife of Sansar Chand, a resident of Chandigarh, had gone to see her brother at Gurdaspur along with her three children. On July 8, 1981 she was to return to Chandigarh, so she along with her children came to bus stand Gurdaspur and her brother Sodagar Singh, nephew Sanjiv Kumar and one of the relatives Sarup Singh accompanied them to bus stand to see them off. Bus No. PUC 3264 of Patiala Depot was to proceed to Patiala at 7. 40 a. m. Shanti Devi made her children sit in the bus and she started talking to her brother Sodagar Singh while standing near the rear window of the bus. Sarup Singh was standing at some distance. Bus No. PBN 219 of Batala Depot which was having no passenger was parked behind the other bus. The accused-respondent Surinder Singh started driving that bus in order to take it ahead of bus No. PUC 3264. He tried to cross that bus from its left side at a high speed without giving any horn. The bus hit Sodagar Singh, Sanjiv Kumar and Shanti Devi. Sodagar Singh was pushed ahead and he fell in front of the bus and died at the spot. Sanjiv Kumar also came in between the two buses and received serious injuries, so also Shanti Devi was injured. Sanjiv Kumar and Shanti Devi were sent to the hospital by Sarup Singh in a rickshaw. Sanjiv Kumar who was aged about 8 years died on the way while Shanti Devi was admitted in the hospital. The accident was caused by Surinder Singh who drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner. The doctor sent a ruqa to the police station and on receipt of the same A. S. I. Rattan Singh reached Civil Hospital at Gurdaspur and sought requisite information from the doctor as to fitness of Shanti Devi to make a statement. The response of the doctor was in the affirmative, so statement of Shanti Devi was recorded, on the basis of which case was registered against the respondent at Police Station Gurdaspur. Photographs of the spot were taken. Inquest was held on the dead bodies of Sodagar Singh and Sanjiv Kumar and the dead bodies were subjected to post-mortem examination. After the completion of the investigation a charge-sheet was presented against the respondent in the court of Mr. D. S. Chhina, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur. The accused-respondent was prosecuted for offences under Sections 279, 304-A and 337, Indian Penal Code. He was held guilty and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for different periods under different sections and was also fined. Against this judgment recording his conviction which was dated December 18, 1982, Surinder Singh respondent filed an appeal in the court of Mr. T. S. Cheema, the learned Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur. His appeal was accepted and he was acquitted of the offences with which he was charged. Against this judgment recording acquittal dated May 18, 1983, the State of Punjab has filed this appeal.

(2.) WE have heard Mr. Randhir Singh, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, the learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. A. S. Cheema, Advocate assisted by Mr. Baljinder Singh, Advocate for the respondent and have perused the record.

(3.) THE learned lower appellate court acquitted the respondent on the sole ground that this fact was not established beyond reasonable doubt that at the time of accident he was the person who was driving bus No. PEN 219. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there was sufficient evidence on record to show that the offending bus was parked behind the bus which was to go to Patiala and in which children of Shanti Devi were sitting. The driver of the bus was taking tea and in his absence the respondent who was conductor attached to that bus drove the bus in order to take it ahead and park it at an advantageous place. The conductor who was newly appointed drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner causing death of two persons and injuries to Shanti Devi. The identity of the respondent was duly proved by the statements of Shanti Devi and Sarup Singh as well as by the conduct of the respondent who fled away from the spot leaving behind his bag, unsold tickets, way bills and his licence. Even the respondent had admitted that he was on duty as a conductor with bus No. PEN 219. We find that the contention of the learned Counsel cannot be accepted as the identity of the respondent was not proved beyond doubt. It is regrettable that two innocent persons, one of whom a young boy of 8 years, lost their lives in this accident. But the respondent can be held guilty only if it is proved beyond a shadow of doubt that it was he whose lethal hands on the wheels of the bus took the lives of Sodagar Singh and Sanjiv Kumar.