SANTOSH KUMARI Vs. JAGDISH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is by the claimants whose petition was dismissed finding that though the death of the 1st claimant's husband was by the involvement of the respondent's vehicle, the claimants had not established that the death of the first claimant's husband was due to any negligent driving of the driver of the Corporation.

(2.) The claimants had sought to contend that the vehicle was driven in a rash manner by the driver of the Corporation's vehicle and a passenger in the vehicle was examined as AW2 to speak about the manner in which the accident took place. AW2 stated that the driver had taken a sudden turn to allow for a car coming behind to overtake the bus. At that time, a passenger, who was in the bus, fell down and the tyre of the bus ran over the passenger. The driver of the bus himself gave evidence to the effect that the deceased attempted to alight from the bus even when the bus was in motion and the vehicle ran over him causing him grievous injury in the scull region and crushed him under the tyres. The Court found that the manner of injury suffered by the deceased would only show that the deceased must have attempted to get down from the bus. In so holding, it also specifically made a mention about the fact that the police which had undertaken the investigation had later filed a cancellation report to the jurisdictional magistrate.

(3.) At the previous hearing of the case, this Court had expressed doubt about the manner in which the police had closed the investigation and this Court had therefore called upon the Station House Officer as well as the Police Officer who investigated the officer to file the necessary documents that led to filing the cancellation report. The Court found subsequently that the cancellation report has been submitted in Court even without examination of the first informant. The Court therefore observed that the whole procedure being an attempt to close the file for cancellation was a travesty of justice and directed the police officer to give a statement on how he gave the closure report. The Police Officer (Inspector) Sandeep Singh, who was said to have undertaken the investigation, was called before Court and he had given a statement to the effect that he took efforts to summon and examine the first informant-Major Abhishek. The police officer Mr. Sandeep Singh is present again before the Court today and the Government pleader, who appears on his behalf, states that there is no record to show that any effort was made to summon the first informant before filing the closure report. Evidently, what he said in Court at the previous hearing was a deliberate lie to conceal his own poor quality of investigation. I will not detain the case only for a direction for a fresh consideration but I am not convinced that the respondent- Corporation has adopted procedures which are doubtful.