ISHWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was convicted under Section 304 - A of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional Chief judicial Magistrate, Jind, vide his judgment dated 23-5-1987 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1-1/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. The order of conviction and sentence was affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jind in appeal.

(2.) On 27-6-1984, the petitioner Ishwar Singh was stated to be driving Haryana Roadways bus bearing No. HRU 1508 within the area of Police Station Sadar, Jind, Raj Pal deceased and Raj Kumar. PW-3, were said to be together on the main road. Raj Kumar went to a nearly shop and fetched water and served the same to the deceased Raj Pal. Raj Pal was going on foot holding his cycle in hand on one side of the road. In the meanwhile, the aforesaid bus driven by Ishwar Singh came with a high speed and struck against Raj Pal deceased, who fell down. The bus stopped at some distance. Raj Pal received injuries and therefore, was lifted and put in the same bus by the passengers and taken to the hospital, where he succumbed to the injuries Raj Kumar, PW 3 want to inform the parents of the deceased about the accident. In the way he met ASI Mohinder Kumar before whom he made his statement Ex. PA and on its basis formal F.I.R Ex. PA/2 was recorded. The said ASI recorded the statements of the witnesses, prepared rough site plan of the place of accident and took into possession the bus etc. vide recovery memos Ex. PC and PD. He also got conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. Balwinder Singh PW.7 took photographs Ex. PW. 7/A and PW. 7/8, PW.8 Bachan Singh, a Motor Mechanic inspected the bus and furnished his report Ex. PW.81 A So with this formal investigation the petitioner was tried for causing the death of the deceased by rash and negligent driving.

(3.) The learned Courts below relied upon the testimony of Raj Kumar, PW. 3, Daya Kishan PW. 4 and observed that the minor discrepancies do not matter and that the petitioner did not put up any specificT defence except that he claimed that he did not cause any accident. Both the Courts below, therefore, on the aforesaid testimony of the eye - witnesses and the situation passed the aforesaid orders of conviction and sentence.