GURJANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In criminal case No.83-1 of 2002, arising out of FIR No.180 dtd. 13/5/2002, registered at Police Station City Muktsar, petitioner-Gurjant Singh has been convicted vide judgment dtd. 30/5/2007 under Sec. 304-A IPC by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Muktsar. Vide separate order of even date, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000.00 with default sentence. Criminal Appeal No.83 of 2007 against the above said judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been dismissed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Muktsar, vide judgment dtd. 15/10/2007. Against these concurrent findings, present revision is filed. The revision was admitted on 19/11/2007 and vide order dtd. 18/12/2007, the sentence of the petitioner was suspended.

(2.) According to the prosecution case, on 13/5/2002, complainant Pirthi Singh along with his nephew had come to Muktsar City from the village in connection with some work. They were standing outside bus stand, Muktsar, when they noticed bus bearing registration No.PB-11F-9729 coming rashly and negligently. The driver of the said bus tried to enter the gate of bus stand, when a boy tried to alight from the rear door. However, the driver drove the bus, due to which that boy fell down and received injuries. The complainant and his nephew ran towards the spot and noticed that his own son Beant Singh was lying there with injuries. Injured was shifted to the Civil Hospital, Muktsar, but he died there. On the statement of Pirthi Singh, i.e. father of the victim, FIR was lodged. Investigation was carried out. Prosecution evidence was taken on record and conviction was recorded by the Trial Court and appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Court, as noticed earlier.

(3.) It is contended by the petitioner that both the Courts below fell in error in recording the conviction, inasmuch as petitioner was not arrested from the spot. No test identification parade was conducted and that identity in the Court for the first time has no significance. Courts below did not consider the fact that accident took place in a crowded place but still no independent witness was examined to substantiate the allegations, as the witnesses examined by the prosecution are highly interested and there are material discrepancies in their statements, inasmuch as there is discrepancy as to whether deceased was trying to alight from the rear door or the front door of the bus. Attention is drawn towards the fact that in the FIR, police alleged that victim was alighting from the front door of the bus but as per the final report under Sec. 173 Cr.P.C., victim was alighting from the rear door. It is contended that in case version mentioned in the final report is accepted, there is remote chance of the death of the victim by the rear tyre of the bus as the rear tyre is ahead of the rear door.