State of Punjab vs Surinder Singh

H.K. Sandhu, J.—The brief facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that Shanti Devi, wife of Sansar Chand, a resident of Chandigarh, had gone to see her brother at Gurdaspur along with her three children. On July 8, 1981 she was to return to Chandigarh, so she along with her children came to bus stand Gurdaspur and her brother Sodagar Singh, nephew Sanjiv Kumar and one of the relatives Sarup Singh accompanied them to bus stand to see them off. Bus No. PUC 3264 of Patiala Depot was to proceed to Patiala at 7.40 a.m. Shanti Devi made her children sit in the bus and she started talking to her brother Sodagar Singh while standing near the rear window of the bus. Sarup Singh was standing at some distance. Bus No. PBN 219 of Batala Depot which was having no passenger was parked behind the other bus. The accused-respondent Surinder Singh started driving that bus in order to take it ahead of bus No. PUC 3264. He tried to cross that bus from its left side at a high speed without giving any horn. The bus hit Sodagar Singh, Sanjiv Kumar and Shanti Devi. Sodagar Singh was pushed ahead and he fell in front of the bus and died at the spot. Sanjiv Kumar also came in between the two buses and received serious injuries, so also Shanti Devi was injured. Sanjiv Kumar and Shanti Devi were sent to the hospital by Sarup Singh in a rickshaw. Sanjiv Kumar who was aged about 8 years died on the way while Shanti Devi was admitted in the hospital. The accident was caused by Surinder Singh who drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner. The doctor sent a ruqa to the police station and on receipt of the same A.S.I. Rattan Singh reached Civil Hospital at Gurdaspur and sought requisite information from the doctor as to fitness of Shanti Devi to make a statement. The response of the doctor was in the affirmative, so statement of Shanti Devi was recorded, on the basis of which case was registered against the respondent at Police Station Gurdaspur. Photographs of the spot were taken. Inquest was held on the dead bodies of Sodagar Singh and Sanjiv Kumar and the dead bodies were subjected to post-mortem examination. After the completion of the investigation a charge-sheet was presented against the respondent in the court of Mr. D.S. Chhina, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur. The accused-respondent was prosecuted for offences under Sections 279, 304A and 337, Indian Penal Code. He was held guilty and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for different periods under different sections and was also fined. Against this judgment recording his conviction which was dated December 18, 1982, Surinder Singh respondent filed an appeal in the court of Mr. T.S. Cheema, the learned Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur. His appeal was accepted and he was acquitted of the offences with which he was charged. Against this judgment recording acquittal dated May 18, 1983, the State of Punjab has filed this appeal.

We have heard Mr. Randhir Singh, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, the learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. A.S. Cheema, Advocate assisted by Mr. Baljinder Singh, Advocate for the respondent and have perused the record.

The learned lower appellate court acquitted the respondent on the sole ground that this fact was not established beyond reasonable doubt that at the time of accident he was the person who was driving bus No. PEN 219. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there was sufficient evidence on record to show that the offending bus was parked behind the bus which was to go to Patiala and in which children of Shanti Devi were sitting. The driver of the bus was taking tea and in his absence the respondent who was conductor attached to that bus drove the bus in order to take it ahead and park it at an advantageous place. The conductor who was newly appointed drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner causing death of two persons and injuries to Shanti Devi. The identity of the respondent was duly proved by the statements of Shanti Devi and Sarup Singh as well as by the conduct of the respondent who fled away from the spot leaving behind his bag, unsold tickets, way bills and his licence. Even the respondent had admitted that he was on duty as a conductor with bus No. PEN 219. We find that the contention of the learned Counsel cannot be accepted as the identity of the respondent was not proved beyond doubt. It is regrettable that two innocent persons, one of whom a young boy of 8 years, lost their lives in this accident. But the respondent can be held guilty only if it is proved beyond a shadow of doubt that it was he whose lethal hands on the wheels of the bus took the lives of Sodagar Singh and Sanjiv Kumar.

The prosecution relied upon the statements of Sarup Singh and Shanti Devi to prove that it was the respondent who drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner which caused accident. So far as Sarup Singh is concerned his very presence at the time of accident is not duly established. He is related to Shanti Devi and Sodagar Singh, but still he did not accompany Shanti Devi or Sanjiv Kumar to the hospital especially when the condition of Sanjiv Kumar was grave and Sodagar Singh had already died. A perusal of the medico-legal report of Shanti Devi shows that she was not accompanied by any relative but it was A.S.I. Rattan Singh who had taken her to the hospital. This fact belies the presence of Sarup Singh at the bus stand when the accident took place, and it also shows that A.S.I. Rattan Singh did not record the statement of Shanti Devi till he was able to involve the respondent in the case. Even if presence of Sarup Singh is assumed at the time of the accident still he did not say that the accident was caued by the respondent. Neither in his examination-in-chief nor in his cross-examination he named the respondent as the person who was driving the bus when accident occurred. During morning time when the accident took place numerous persons were expected to be present at the bus stand and some of them must have witnessed the accident yet none of those persons was taken into confidence. There is thus only the statement of Shanti Devi who deposed that she later on learnt that the accident was caused by Surinder Singh respondent. At the time of accident she was standing near the rear window of the bus in which she was to travel and was engrossed in conversation with her brother. The accident took place within no time as the offending bus was parked just behind the bus bound for Patiala. Two of the close relatives of Shanti Devi died in this accident and she herself was injured. She was, therefore, not in a position to notice as to who was driving the bus. In her statement, she did not give description of the respondent and she simply deposed that she learnt his name to be Surinder Singh. Identification of the respondent by her in court was not of any consequence. The respondent admittedly was not known to the witness earlier. The learned lower appellate court rightly placed reliance on the case of Kanan v. State of Kerala 1979 SCC (Cri) 621 and held that implicit reliance could not be placed on the statement of Shanti Devi so far as question of identity of the accused-respondent was concerned.

The prosecution examined Harnek Singh, PW 15, driver of bus No. PUC 3264 and Piara Lal, PW 17, driver of the offending bus. Both these witnesses were taking tea at the time of the alleged accident and were unable to state as to who caused the accident. No question was put to Piara Lal as to how the keys of the bus came to the hands of the respondent, rather Piara Lal stated that although the accident had taken place yet he did not know as to how the same had occurred. It is correct that the respondent was not apprehended at the spot but there is nothing on record to suggest that he fled away leaving the way bill, unsold tickets and his licence at the spot. He had denied this allegation in his statement u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As the identity of the person who drove the offending bus in a rash and negligent manner was not duly established the respondent was rightly given the benefit of doubt and was acquitted. The findings of the learned lower appellate court are correct and are hereby affirmed.

As a result, we do not find any merit in this appeal and consequently the same is dismissed.