Sahib Singh vs State of Haryana

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.—The present revision petition has been filed by Sahib Singh. He was named as an accused in case FIR No. 182 dated 27.5.1995 registered at Police Station City Panipat under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC.

The Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat held the petitioner guilty of offence u/s 279 and 304A IPC vide its judgment dated 3.12.2001 and by a separate order of even date sentenced him to undergo six months RI u/s 279 and two years RI u/s 304A IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner had filed an appeal. The Appellate Court, finding no merit in the appeal, dismissed the same and upheld the conviction. However, reduced the sentence from two years RI to one year RI u/s 304A IPC.

FIR in the present case was lodged by Bhalle Ram PW-3. He stated that he was a resident of village Raja Kheri. On 27.5.1995 on the day of occurrence, he was present near the fields of Shri Chander at about 10.30 AM. A bus bearing registration No. HR-45-0789 was seen coming towards that side at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. At that time, two young boys on a bicycle were coming from the village Raja Kheri side. The bus driver hit the bus in the bicycle due to which bicycle was broken and both the boys suffered injuries. The driver disclosed his name as Sahib Singh son of Hardev. The driver brought both the boys in the bus to hospital at Panipat. Complainant went to the village. Thereafter, complainant reached at the Civil Hospital where both the boys were found dead.

The abovesaid FIR was investigated and report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted.

The petitioner was tried for offence u/s 304A IPC for having caused death of Jag Roshan and Ajmer by driving bus No. HR-45-0789 in a rash and negligent manner on 27.5.1995. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

PW-1 Jai Bhagwan Constable stated that on 27.5.1995 he was posted at the Police post. He received a ruqa from the General Hospital, Panipat and he had recorded DDR No. 10. PW-2 Dr. Gulshan Bajaj, Medical Officer had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Ajmer and stated that cause of death was injury to vital organs. PW-3 Bhalle Ram reiterated as to what was stated in the FIR. PW-4 Chander stated that he was a labourer. On 27.5.1995 he had gone out of the village. In the night he got information that due to accident, two persons had died in the Civil Hospital. He had identified the dead body of Jag Roshan and Ajmer in the inquest proceedings. Thereafter, the statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C.

Sh. Shakun Chaudhary, Advocate appearing for the petitioner has stated that the complainant Bhalle Ram, PW-3 in examination-in-chief, has stated that accident had taken place as petitioner was driving the bus at a very high speed. However, a perusal of examination-in-chief of the witness reveals that he had specifically stated that the petitioner was driving the bus rashly and negligently and it was due to his mistake that accident had taken place. However, a perusal of evidence reveals that in the present case, no draftsman, no photographer and no Invesgating Officer was examined. To arrive at the conclusion that the petitioner was driving the bus rashly and negligently, this Court cannot take aid of any visual observation, of any person who had examined the spot. Furthermore, the accused was not known to Bhalle Ram. It is stated by him that the petitioner had taken both the injured to the hospital. No person from the hospital had been examined to prove this fact. To determine whether petitioner was driving the bus rashly and negligently, Court has to rely on the solitary statement of PW-3 Bhalle Ram. This witness in cross-examination stated that he had seen the offending bus from a distance of 100 feet. This witness further stated that he reached at the spot at 1.30 PM and at that time police had also arrived alongwith a photographer. When the Court has to appreciate the testimony of the solitary witness, the Court has to first arrive at the conclusion whether the Court can place implicit reliance upon the testimony of the witness. PW-3 Bhalle Ram is a Chowkidar. On the day of occurrence, he had gone to the village to take herbs (desi jhadi bhutti). He was neither the owner nor the cultivator of the fields. His presence at the spot, is improbable. Therefore, it was necessary that some other witness ought to have been examined. Bhalle Ram PW-3 stated that many people gathered at the spot. As stated earlier, to determine whether the driver was driving the bus rashly and negligently, the Court has to rely only on the assertion of this witness. No draftsman, no photographer and no Investigating Officer was examined. Therefore, the accused-petitioner has been denied an opportunity of cross-examination to demonstrate that he was not driving the bus rashly and negligently.

In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioner can be granted benefit of doubt as a matter of abundant caution.

Hence, the present revision petition is accepted and the petitioner is acquitted of the charges.