SWAROOP SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this revision, the petitioner Swaroop Singh has approached this Court assailing the judgment dated 7.6.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sriganganagar in criminal appeal affirming the judgment dated 27.2.1999 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar in Cr.Regular Case No. 177/94 convicting and sentencing the petitioner as below:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_160_LAWS(RAJ)7_2016_1.html</FRM>

(2.) Succinctly stated the facts, relevant and essential for disposal of the instant revision, are noted herein below. One Indraj, Foot Constable, lodged a written report, Ex.P-10 at the Police Station Kotwali Sriganganagar on 5.2.1994 at about 2.15 PM. It was alleged in the report that he and other Constables of the District Special Branch namely Gurtej Singh, Gurdas Singh and Daulat Singh had been assigned field duty in plain clothes in the Ganganagar City on the fateful day. In the afternoon, at about 1.30 PM, he and his co-constables, checked the buses standing at the Bus Stand and thereafter, they were standing near the food stalls located by the link canal opposite the main gate of the Bus Stand and were taking some snacks. At that point of time, a roadways bus No. RJ14.P.2947 came towards them being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The bus collided with Gurdas Singh and a rickshaw puller, rammed into the stalls and thereafter, toppled over into the canal. By impact of the collision, Gurdas Singh and one rickshaw puller also fell into the canal. Baldeo Singh and Umesh, who were standing nearby, also received injuries. The informant with the aid of Daulat Singh and Gurtej Singh pulled out Gurdas Singh and the rickshaw puller from the canal and sent them to the hospital. Gurdas Singh and the rickshaw puller passed away while undergoing treatment at the hospital. On the basis of this report, an F.I.R. No. 52/94 was registered at the Police Station Kotwali Sriganganagar against the petitioner herein being the driver of the offending bus for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304A I.P.C. The requisite investigation was conducted. The bus was mechanically examined and thereafter, a charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner in the concerned Court for the above offences. Accusation of the alleged offences was read out to the petitioner herein, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited numerous documents. The accused, in his statement under Sec. 313 Crimial P.C. stated, that he was not driving the bus at a fast pace. He was taking the bus out of the Bus Stand for going towards Padampur. For proceeding towards Padampur, virtually a U-turn had to be taken and thus, there was no possibility that the bus could gather any significant speed. While he was bringing the bus out from the Bus Stand and was turning the same, the pressure system failed and thus, the horn as well as the brakes stopped working. He shouted out to the bye-standers to move themselves aside. Had he turned the bus towards Padampur, then it would have caused more harm He tried his level the best to save the people but lost control over the bus, owing to the failure of the pressure system resulting into the accident. In support of his defence, the accused, relied on the statement of the M.T.O. PW-6 Jethmal, who admitted in his evidence, that the pressure system of the bus was not working when he conducted mechanical examination. He also admitted that the brakes and the horn of the bus were dependent on the pressure system only. The apparent cause for the inability of the driver to apply brakes and blow the horn, was the failure of the pressure system. The Trial Judge however, did not accept the defence of the accused and proceeded to convict and sentence him as above. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was also rejected by the Appellate Court. Being aggrieved, the accused-petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant revision.

(3.) Shri Pankaj Gupta Advocate appearing on behalf of Shri M.K. Garg, Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the conviction of the petitioner as recorded by the learned Trial Judge is absolutely illegal and contrary to the material available on record. The evidence of Jethmal PW-6 the M.T.O. establishes beyond all manner of doubt that the pressure system of the bus had failed at the time of the accident. The petitioner, who was in process of taking a U-turn after brining the bus out of the Bus Stand, could not maintain control thereupon, owing to the failure of the pressure system as the braking system and the horn were both dependent on it. Thereupon, he tried to minimise the damage to the public and property by driving the bus off the road. However, as the horn, which was also dependent on the pressure system, could not be sounded, the bystanders could not be alerted resulting into the fatality. He thus urged that the accident happened because of mechanical failure of the bus which was beyond the control of the accused-petitioner and therefore, as per him, the Trial Court committed grave legal error in convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the above offences. He therefore, prayed that the petitioner is entitled to be acquitted by allowing the revision and reversing the impugned judgment.