BED RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BED Ram petitioner was brought to trial under Sections 304-A and 279, Indian Penal Code, before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ballabgarh, and having been found guilty thereunder, was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1000/- under the first count and to 6 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- under the second count. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, upheld his convictions and sentences. He has now come up in revision against the judgment of the Courts below.

(2.) THE prosecution story is in a very narrow compass. It is alleged that on the fateful day i.e. on January 23, 1976 at about 5.45 p.m., Dilbagh Singh Foreman and Ude Chand came on a motorcycle No. DHW 5544 from Ajronda side. The motorcycle was being driven by Ude Chand and Dilbagh Singh was sitting on the pillion. In the meantime, bus No. DLP 7000 came from Ballabgarh side. It was being driven at a very high speed and struck against the motorcycle. As a result of the collision, Dilbagh Singh fell down from the motorcycle and received injuries. Ude Chand, however, escaped. This occurrence was witnessed by Darshan Singh and Ude Chand, PWs. Dilbagh Singh was removed to the hospital at Faridabad from where he has referred to Safdarjang Hospital at Delhi. The bus-driver gave his name as Bed Ram. Darshan Singh lodged report, Exhibit P.B., with the police and a case under Sections 337/279, Indian Penal Code, was registered at Police Station Central Faridabad. Dilbagh Singh, however, succumbed to his injuries in the hospital. After necessary investigation, the accused was sent up to face his trial under Section 304-A and 279, Indian Penal Code.

(3.) THE petitioner took up an evasive defence and in fact denied the factum of even driving the bus and stated that he had been falsely implicated. Both the Courts below after adverting to this plea of the petitioner have categorically rejected it. Even on an independent appraisal I am inclined to agree with the same view more so in the absence of any evidence at all to indicate that somebody other than the petitioner was driving the bus at the relevant time. Once, the plea of the ahbi taken by the petitioner is rejected, it will inevitably boomerang on the petitioner. The evidence Darshan Singh and Ude Chand is clear and forthright. There appears to be not the least reason why these independent witnesses who did 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.