State of Punjab vs Dalip Singh

J.S. Sekhon, J.—In brief, the facts of the prosecution case are that on 13th of April, 1986, Kulwant Singh, PW 2, was driving the bus bearing registration No. PJG 7341 of the Pepsu Roadways Transport Corporation from Patiala to Bhatinda. Jagga Singh, PW 3, was conductor of this bus. It started from Patiala at 6.30 a.m. with 25/26 passengers. When this bus reached near village Balad Kalan at 7.15 a.m., one truck bearing registration No. RSC 8939 driven by Dalip Singh, accused respondent, came from the opposite direction at a full speed. The truck was being driven carelessly in a zigzag manner. The right side of the truck struck against the right side of the bus. Thereafter, due to the impact of the accident, the bus took a turn and went into the ditches along its right side of the road. One passenger travelling in the bus died due to the accident while other five-six passengers received injuries. Two of the injured passengers died in the hospital. Kulwant Singh, driver of the bus, as well as Jagga Singh were also injured. The injured were got admitted in the Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. Sub-Inspector Lakha Singh, Incharge of Police Station, Bhiwanigarh, on receipt of information of this accident rushed to the spot. The truck was found parked on the left side of the road at the spot while the bus was lying in the ditches. A dead body was lying inside the bus, but no witness to the actual accident was available at the spot. He then rushed to the Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, and recorded the statement, Exh. PB, of Kulwant Singh at 12.30 p.m., on the basis of which a case under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against Dalip Singh, accused respondent (driver of the truck), at Police Station, Bhiwanigarh, at 2.15 p.m. The dead bodies of Surinder Pal, Mangat Singh and Kaur Sain were got subjected to post-mortem examination from Dr. Ramesh Mehta and Dr. O.P. Aggarwal, PW 5 and PW 8, respectively.

Dr. O.P. Aggarwal also medically examined Ishar Singh and Sant Singh, injured witnesses, on 13.4.1986.

The Sub-Inspector also took into possession the bus and the truck from the spot, besides preparing the visual site plan, Exh. PW 9/D, of the spot. He also recorded the statements of the witnesses. Dalip Singh accused was also arrested and his driving licence was taken into possession. After completion of investigation, the accused was arraigned for trial on such like allegations.

Before the trial court, in order to prove its above referred case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses. Kulwant Singh and Jagga Singh, eyewitnesses, supported the above referred version of the prosecution. Ishar Singh and Sant Singh, the injured witnesses, were given up by the prosecution.

The version of the accused respondent before the trial court was that of innocence and false implication. He maintained that the accident took place due to the negligence of the bus driver. He, however, led no evidence in defence.

The trial court acquitted Dalip Singh, accused respondent, of the charge for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 304A, Indian Penal Code, on the point of identity, by holding that the prosecution has failed to prove whether he was driving the truck or other person who was travelling with him in the said truck.

Being aggrieved against the said order of acquittal of the accused by the trial court, the State has come up in appeal against acquittal. Leave to appeal was granted u/s 378(3), Criminal Procedure Code, by the Division Bench of this court and the appeal was admitted.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record.

Mr. S.S. Dhaliwal, the learned Deputy Advocate-General, Punjab, contends that the trial court has wrongly disbelieved the evidence of Jagga Singh, conductor of the bus, according to whom just after the occurrence, Dalip Singh alighted from the truck and on his query admitted that he was driving the truck. Thus, he maintains that the admission of Dalip Singh accused being res gestae is admissible u/s 6 of the Evidence Act. We find no force in this contention as admittedly Dalip Singh accused was not earlier known to Kulwant Singh and Jagga Singh, eyewitnesses. The very factum that Jagga Singh had made inquiries from him as to who was driving the truck shows that Jagga Singh had failed to identify the driver of the truck at the time of this accident. Moreover, in an accident involving two vehicles coming from the opposite direction, there is hardly any time to perceive the identity of the driver of the other vehicle by persons present in the bus, especially when according to Jagga Singh, two drivers had alighted from the truck after the accident. Thus, the trial court rightly found it doubtful whether Dalip Singh was driving the truck at the time of this accident.

To crown it all, Hardev Singh, PW 4, who had allegedly mechanically tested the bus had not supported the prosecution version. On the other hand, he stated having not mechanically tested the bus, but maintained that the police had obtained his thumb impression on one paper. He was allowed to be cross-examined by the prosecution but nothing useful could be elicited by the prosecution except confronting him with his earlier statement.

For the foregoing reasons, we find no justification in interfering with the well-founded order of acquittal of the trial court. Consequently, the appeal against acquittal fails and is dismissed.