DALIP SINGH ALIAS DIPA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DALIP Singh Petitioner was brought to trial under Section 304 -A, Indian Penal Code, before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar and having been found guilty thereunder was convicted and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar, upheld his conviction and sentence. He has now come up in revision against the judgments of the Courts below.

(2.) ON 21st May, 1979, a convoy was returning from Wallah towards Gumtala in connection with military operations. Daya Shanker, PW 3, was driving vehicle No. ZD 59147. Two army vehicles were ahead of him and two were following him. It is said that when the vehicle driven by Daya Shanker reached near the bye -pass of village Ganda Singh Wala, bus No. PUE 9920, driven by the accused came from the side of Majitha and struck on the right side of the vehicle driven by Daya Shanker. Daya Shanker took his truck to the left. The result was that the bus driven by the accused fell in a ditch. A woman, who was a passenger of the bus driven by the accused fell out and died. The other passengers sitting in the bus also received injuries. The occurrence was witnessed by Hem Parbhat, PW 4, who was in the truck of Daya Shanker. The case was registered on the statement, exhibit PW 3/A, of Daya Shanker and the same formed the basis of the formal first information report, exhibit PW 3/C. Assistant Sub -Inspector Puran Singh investigated the case and held inquest on the dead body of Mrs. Charno. Dr. Gurdip Kumar conducted autopsy on the dead body of Mrs. Charno and found as many as 23 injuries as detailed in the post mortem report. After necessary investigation, the accused was challaned and sent up for his trial.

(3.) THE evidence of Daya Shanker and Hem Parbhat, PWs, is clear and forthright. There appears to be not the least reason why these independent witnesses, who do not have the least animus against the Petitioner would choose to name the Petitioner for relatively a serious charge. The promptness with which the first information report was lodged, virtually rules out any concoction or consultation to falsely implicate the Petitioner. For all these reasons, I am clearly of the view that the prosecution has been able to bring the guilt home to the Petitioner beyond any reasonable doubt. His conviction has, therefore, to be affirmed.