ROSHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the conviction of the petitioner under sections 304-A and 279 of the Indian Penal Code Briefly the facts alleged against him were that on July 11, 1983, at about 5.30 P. M. while he was driving bus No. HRC-6414 on the G. T. Road from Ashram, a place in Delhi to Sikri, a. little beyond Faridabad, he caused the death of Surinder Kumar by driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. He is said to have hit the cycle of the deceased from behind. This version of the prosecution was accepted by the two Courts in the light of statements of two eyewitnesses. i.e., Ugar Sain and Narain Dutt, P. Ws. 1 and 2 respectively. It was P.W.1. who lodged the F. I R. Exhibit PA. at about 7.05 PM on the same day. While upholding the conviction as-recorded by the trial Court, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has observed in his judgment that there is nothing in the cross- examination of the aforesaid P. Ws to discard or disbelive the version given by them in their examanation-in-chief. Besides this be also opined in this judgment that the petitioner had not disputed the date. time and place of the occurrence in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C.

(2.) MR . Gaur, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner however points out that both the above noted conclusions of the learned Appellate Court are wrong and not supported by the evidence on record. He points out that firstly the petitioner in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. never accepted the version of the prosecution so far as the in time and place of occurrence is concerned. With regard to the date of occurrence all that he told the Court was that on that day he was on duty to run the Haryana State Transport Bus from Ashram to Sikri. Otherwise he denied that the bus driven by him even met with an accident on that day. It is then pointed out by Mr. Gaur that P.W. 1 has made three significant averments in his statement which are to the following effect :