Gurcharan Singh vs State of Punjab

M.M. Punchhi, J.

This is a bus driver''s revision petition who was convicted under Sections 304A and 337 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to diverse terms of imprisonment and fine.

The offending bus belonging to Malwa Transport Company was admittedly being driven by the petitioner Gurcharan Singh at the time of accident which took place at 6 p.m., on November 10, 1982 on a main road coming from village Chooselewar. At that time, as is the prosecution case, the cycle which was being rid by Sagga Ram (deceased), on the carrier of which his father Faqir Chand was sitting, was going in the same direction in which the bus was going. It is said that the left hind portion of the bus hit the cyclist by the impact of which Faqir Chand was thrown off and the bus ran over Sagga Ram (deceased), as also the cycle. The eyewitness to the accident was Babu Ram (PW1) who was the brother of Sagga Ram (deceased) and obviously the son of Faqir Chand P.W. After the impact, the bus concededly stopped at about 20 yards and as is plain from the photographs taken on the spot. It was halted mainly on the metalled portion of the road, but its hind left wheels were on the unmetalled portion. The direction seemingly was as if the vehicle was intended to be taken on the metalled portion of the road. The petitioner got down to take stock of the situation. He halted a car and removed Faqir Chand PW in it to the hospital. ASI Swaran Singh (PW7) was present on a crossing, known as Lahore Chowk in connection with patrol duty. On receiving information, he rushed to the hospital and recorded the statement of Babu Ram (PW1) at 9.15 p.m., which became the basis of the First Information Report. The petitioner was named therein.

The injuries on the deceased and Faqir Chand PW require no elaboration. The occurrence was admitted by the petitioner, but his plea was that the cyclist came abruptly on the main road from the link road coming from village Thakur Kaura and in a second, the occurrence took place. The petitioner pleaded that his driving was not rash or negligent. The petitioner examined defence as well.

The Courts below took the view that the petitioner was driving the bus rashly and negligently. The trial Magistrate employed the photographs taken of the spot to come to such conclusion, because, in his view, the rear portion of the bus being on the unmetalled portion per se, reflected rash or negligent driving. The Appellate Court employed the doctrine res ipso loquitur on the circumstances that Sagga Ram (deceased) was crushed under the bus. That view is under challenging in his petition.

The site plan Ex. P7/3 gives the topography of the area and as deposed to by ASI Swaran Singh (PW7) it is apparent therefrom that perpendicularly a link road coming from village Thakur Kaura touches the main road. Both the PWs are unanimous that they, along with the deceased, had gone to village Thakur Kaura to see a buffalo for purchase and were returning thereafter on their respective cycle. Babu Ram (PW1) was emphatic that his brother Sagga Ram''s cycle was about 9 Karms ahead of him and he had entered the main road whereas Babu Ram had not when the accident took place. In crossexamination Babu Ram stated that his father and brother had not stopped before coming on the metalled road from the link road, which means that they had gone ahead. Faqir Chand (PW2) similarly says that Babu Ram (PW1) was behind them and that the cycle of the deceased had partly come on the Kucha and partly on the Pucca portion of the metalled road which he meant was the main road. In crossexamination he stated that the accident took place halfan hour ten minutes of their coming to the main road. In his next breath, he stated that the accident took place at the distance of 15 to 20 yards after they had come on the metalled road. At that time, concededly as stated by him, they had not noticed the bus when they had come on the main road. But further he went on to say that his son Sagga Ram had stopped the cycle when they had come on the main road. Babu Ram (PW1) says to the contrary that his brother had not stopped the cycle.

It is left to imagination that when two cyclist, one after the other, approach a main road, and one can enter it and the other is left behind, how much time would it consume for a bus to crush over the first cyclist and stop 15 to 20 yards after the impact. Everything must have happened within seconds. It was the cyclists who had to be careful to see the on going vehicular traffic on the main road before entering it. Sagga Ram (deceased), as also his father Faqir Chand (PW2), the former seemingly and the other admittedly, did not notice the bus coming on the main road and rather came in front of it abruptly. The cycle had come from the right hand side of the bus. It had to cross in front of the bus to be on the unmetalled portion of the road, on the other side, i.e. to be at the left hand side of the bus. Seemingly by impulse, the bus driver, on seeing the cyclists, swerved towards the left hand side to avoid the cycle and reserved towards the metalled road, thinking that he had avoided him but, then, the inevitable happened and one man died and the bus stopped at 15 to 20 yards of the impact. This is the impression which one gathers on closely scowtinising the evidence of the PWs, the site plan Ex.PW7/3, the photographs and the plea of the petitioner, and in any case, this is enough to entertain doubt that unfortunately the accident took place, but not on account of the rash and negligent act of the driver. Accordingly, extending to him the benefit of doubt, he is acquitted of the charges.

JUDGMENT accordingly.