MATA DIN Vs. STATE OF U.T. CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prosecution case in brief is that on 25.8.92, constable Kulwant Singh No. 2308 was on general duty in Sector 17, Chandigarh. He was on patrol duty along with HC Chatar Singh in the market area of Sector 21. When he along with HC Chatar Singh reached near the Nehru Youth Centre, HC Chatar Singh was called back to police booth at about 8.25 P.M. When he (constable Kulwant Singh) was coming towards police booth at about 8.25 P.M. and reached bus stop near Namdev Bhawan, bus bearing No. RJ-14P-2119 belonging to Rajasthan State Transport Corporation came from the side of sector 20-21 at a very fast speed. Bus dashed against a young man who succumbed to his injuries at the spot. Matadin was the driver of that bus. He stopped the bus at some distance. Matadin ran away from the spot. Accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Matadin. SI Kuldip Singh, SHO, PS Central Chandigarh reached the spot. He recorded the statement of constable Kulwant Singh on the basis of which case FIR No. 161 was registered at PS Central Chandigarh under section 279/304-A IPC. After investigation accused was challaned.

(2.) ACCUSED was charged under section 279/304-A IPC by the learned Magistrate. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. On the conclusion of the trial, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh found the charge under section 279/304-A IPC proved against the accused. He accordingly convicted him thereunder. He sentenced him to undergo RI for 1-1/2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 400/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for 15 days under section 304-A IPC. He sentenced him to undergo RI for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to undergo further RI for 7 days under section 279 IPC. Sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved from this order dated 18.11.97 convicting and sentencing him, Matadin accused went in appeal to the Court of Session. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh dismissed the appeal but reduced the sentence to 1 year RI under section 304-A IPC. Sentence of fine was maintained. Sentence imposed upon him under section 279 IPC was also maintained. Still not satisfied, Matadin has knocked the door of this court through this Crl. Revision.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that if constable Kulwant Singh had really witnessed the accident, he would have tried to take the victim to the hospital or some nearby doctor. Suffice it to say, when the victim had succumbed to his injuries at the spot, there was no sense in taking him to the hospital or nearby doctor. It was further submitted that as per constable Kulwant Singh, PW, it was a very busy road and many people were coming and going on the road. So many people had gathered at the spot. Still nobody was cited as having witnessed the accident. Suffice it to say constable Kulwant Singh was merely on patrol duty. How could he know who the persons who had gathered at the spot were and further who had witnessed the accident. It was further submitted that constable Kulwant Singh had not witnessed the accident and it was after the accident had taken place that he noticed the accident having taken place. Constable Kulwant Singh stated that when he heard the noise then he saw the accident. It was submitted that this means that he had not witnessed the accident. Suffice it to say, constable Kulwant Singh has stated that when he reached near Namdev Bhawan sector 21, he saw one person (Avtar Singh) who was going on foot, crossing the road from Namdev Bhawan to the school opposite Namdev Bhawan. In the meantime, bus from sector 20-21 side came at a very fast speed and dashed against Avtar Singh. We have to read these lines in the context of his entire statement. His statement suggests that the accident took place when he reached Namdev Bhawan and saw Avtar Singh going on foot crossing the road from Namdev Bhawan to the school opposite Namdev Bhawan.