Inder Singh vs State of H.P.

Surjit Singh, J.—Petitioner has sought reversal of judgment of his conviction and sentence for offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC. Petitioner was tried for the aforesaid offences by a Judicial Magistrate and was held guilty of all the aforesaid offences. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, for offence u/s 279 IPC, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, for offence u/s 337 IPC, to undergo simple imprisonment for four months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, for offence u/s 338 IPC, and to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- for offence u/s 304A IPC. Appeal filed by the petitioner, against the judgment of learned Judicial Magistrate in the Court of Sessions Judge, has been dismissed.

Petitioner was employed as driver on a private bus. On 9.9.1998, when the bus was going from Shimla to Sarahan, it met with an accident at a place called Bagthal, near Oddi. Several passengers died and several others sustained grievous and simple injuries. Matter was reported to the police. Police visited the spot, prepared the site plan and recorded statement of one of the injured passengers, namely PW-3 Hiru Ram, u/s 154 Cr.P.C. Mechanical test of the bus was conducted by PW-9 Gian Chand, who found no mechanical defect.

Prosecution examined five eye-witnesses of the occurrence, namely PW-3 Hiru Ram, PW-5 Rakesh Kumar, PW-6 Sangeeta Devi, PW-7 Satish Kumar and PW-8 Pratap Chand. It also examined Motor Mechanic PW-9 Gian Chand. Investigating Officer PW-11 Roop Singh was also examined, who proved site plan Ext.PW-11/A.

Petitioner did not deny that he was driving the bus. He also did not deny that the bus rolled down the road and fell very deep towards valley side. He, however, pleaded that accident took place because of sudden breaking of tie rod end, on account of which steering went free. Two courts below have not found favour with the petitioner''s plea and convicted and sentenced him, on the basis of testimony of PW-7 Satish Kumar and PW-8 Pratap Chand as also the statement of PW-9 Gian Chand Motor Mechanic.

PW-7 Satish Kumar very categorically stated that the bus was moving at fast speed and two persons were sitting on bonnet near the driver and the driver had been gossiping with those two persons. Of course, he did not say so in his statement, u/s 161 Cr.P.C., to the police during investigation. He was duly confronted with his statement, u/s 161 Cr.P.C., but there should be no reason to disbelieve his statement, with regard to speed of the bus. PW-8 Pratap Chand also stated that the bus was being driven very fast, because of which driver lost control and bus rolled down the road. No such suggestion was thrown to any of the witnesses examined by the prosecution that any part of the bus, forming part of mechanical system, got broken and because of that accident took place. It was suggested only to one of the witnesses, namely PW-8 Pratap Chand that before the bus rolled down there was a sound of breaking of some part, which he denied.

Mechanic, who conducted the mechanical test, namely PW-9 Gian Chand, very specifically denied that tie rod end of the bus was broken.

In view of the above discussion , no fault can be found with the findings returned by the two courts below that the cause of accident was rash or negligent driving of the bus by the petitioner. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed.