Abhai Singh vs State of Haryana

Ajit Singh Bains, J.—The Petitioner was convicted u/s 279 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. He was also convicted u/s 304-A, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for � years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months, by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon. However, the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon upheld the conviction and sentences imposed upon the Petitioner by the learned trial Court. He has challenged his convictions and sentences under both the counts, by way of this revision petition.

The prosecution case, as set up at the trial, was that on 2nd September, 1979 at about 3.30 or 4.00 p.m. Virender Singh (since deceased) was going on his cycle when the Petitioner came from behind driving his truck No. DHG-2770 at a fast speed and hit Virender Singh, as a result of which the latter sustained injuries and died soon after. It is alleged that the occurrence was witnessed by Maha Singh PW 5 and Mahabir.

The injured was taken to Civil Hospital, Gurgaon, by the Petitioner himself, but he died on the way, as is stated in the doctor''s rukka exhibit DA which was sent to the police. On receipt of this rukka, H.C. Uma Chand went to the hospital and recorded the statement exhibit PC of Mahabir. On the basis of his statement, formal F.I.R. exhibit PB was recorded at Police Station Sadar, Gurgaon.

At the trial, the Petitioner denied the prosecution allegations, but admitted the fact of accident and explained that it was due to the negligence of the deceased himself, who had suddenly taken a turn towards the right. He denied that he was driving the truck rashly or negligently.

The prosecution case rests on the testimony of Maha Singh PW 5. Mahabir has not been produced by the prosecution in spite of the opportunities. The testimony of Maha Singh PW 5 does not inspire confidence, although he has supported the prosecution version. Maha Sigh PW 5 belongs to the village of the deceased. He seems to have supported the prosecution only because the deceased belonged to his village. His presence at the spot seems to be doubtful. In his examination-in-chief Maha Singh PW 5 stated that the deceased was brought to the hospital in an ambulance by him, whereas Exhibit DA (rukka sent by the doctor to the police) reads as under:

To the Station House Officer, Thana Sadar, Gurgaon.

Unknown deadbody is brought by Abhai Singh (driver) Truck No. DHG 2770 at 4.45 p.m. No pulse. No pulpitation of heart. This accident had occurred near the Air Force Office, Delhi Road. This is for your information and necessary action. D.D. No. 21 dated 2.9.1979.

Sd/- Doctor.

The aforesaid rukka sent by the doctor to the police completely falsifies the evidence of Maha Singh PW 5, who says that he had accompanied the deceased to the hospital. Had he been there, he would have definitely given the name and parentage of the deceased to the doctor and further it would have been mentioned by the doctor that the deceased was brought by Maha Singh PW 5. In fact, Virender Singh was taken by the Petitioner himself to the hospital as is clear from the rukka, exhibit DA. The conduct of the Petitioner also goes a long way in absolving him from the crime. He had stopped the truck and taken Virender Singh to the hospital. Had he been guilty he would not have stopped the truck and might have escaped. Generally the truck and bus drivers do not stop their vehicles after the accident. It is very rarely that they act in the manner as the Petitioner did in the present case.

For the reasons recorded above, I am of the view that it is not safe to maintain the conviction of the Petitioner. Accordingly, he is given the benefit of doubt and acquitted of the charges.

In the result, this revision petition is allowed and the convictions and sentences under both the counts recorded by the Courts below are set aside. The fine if already deposited, be refunded to the Petitioner.