Gurmukh Singh v. State of UT Chandigarh

Mr. Roopam Jain, Advocate for the petitioner -.-

3. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? To be referred to the Reporter or not? Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This is a revision against the judgement of conviction dated

25.04.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class convicting the accused-revision petitioner under Sections 279 and 304 A of Indian Panel Code to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for commission of offence punishable under Section 279 of Indian Penal code and also to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for commission of offence punishable under Section 304-A of Indian Penal code. An appeal against the order of sentence dated 24.04.2007 was dismissed. However, the sentence for the charge under section 304-A of Indian Penal code was further reduced to six months. CRR No. 1051 of 2010 2 While challenging the impugned judgement/order of conviction, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no evidence. No independent witness was joined intentionally. It is further stated that PW 10 Nageshwar Parshad, is close relative of the deceased and he in fact only identified the body but was shown as eye witness. Learned counsel for the petitioner is heard. As per the fact recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, the prosecution case is that “the complainant HC Devinder Singh alongwith home guard volunteer Dharam Singh, Jaswinder Singh and driver of Gypsy Piar Chand was on official duty on 28.3.2000. He saw that a cyclist came from Sector 39 to Sector 38, Chandigarh West from the side of Daddumajra and a CTU bus bearing No. CH-010G-5571 which was being driven by appellant Gurmukh Singh in a rash and negligent manner hit the cyclist Shanju Kumar son of Ram Baran, aged 10 years, the cyclist suffered serious injuries and died at the spot but Gurmukh Singh fled away from the spot and was chased by the complainant and his co-employees. The appellant was apprehended. Police was called at the spot and the statement of the complainant Ex.PW.4/A was recorded. In pursuance thereof formal FIR was registered against the accused. Dead body of the deceased was taken into possession by police and sent to hospital for conducting post- mortem examination. Police visited the spot, prepared rough site plan. Accused was formally arrested on the same day and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.P.2 on 28.3.2000 vide memo Ex.P.1. Deceased was taken to PGI where his post-mortem examination was conducted on

30.3.2000. The dead body of deceased was identified by his relative Jagan CRR No. 1051 of 2010 3 Nath and Nageshwar Parshad. During the course of investigation duty chart of above said bus was taken into possession which reveals that the accused was the driver of the bus and Jang Singh was the conductor. After completion of investigation challan was submitted against the appellant.” PW-6 – Devinder Singh is an eye witness. Accused-petitioner was apprehended. It is also admitted by PW-6 that he had taken the deceased to the hospital and therefore, he did not note down the name and addresses of the other co-passengers. There is nothing to disbelieve that PW6 is an eye witness. His statement cannot be ignored just because he is a police official. He took the deceased to the hospital. His presence, therefore, cannot be doubted. There is nothing to show as to why he will depose falsely against the present petitioner. The petitioner is also a driver of CTU Bus, a government employee. There is no reason as to why Head Constable who is also a government employee will involve another government employee in a false case. The Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal, observed as under:- “36. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that there is evidence of DW1 Mahatam Singh that bus was entered into yard at 9.20 P.M. and further DW2 Jang Singh conductor of the bus had testified that no accident had taken place with the bus and bus was entered in the yard at 9.20 P.M. I have considered the statements of these witnesses. It is established that bus was taken into possession on

28.3.2000 by the investigating officer and at that time photographs were taken. Both PW7 photographer Sanjeev Kumar as well as investigating officer PW4 CRR No. 1051 of 2010 4 have been cross examined at length. No case is made out that the bus was entered in the CTU yard at 9.20 P.M. rather it is established that appellant made an endeavour to run away from spot but he was apprehended and bus was taken into possession. The evidence of PW7 has gone unchallenged. It seems that DW1 Mahatam Singh DW2 Jang Singh had concocted false story in order to save their colleague. When the bus was taken into possession near from the spot it was got released on superdari by the CTU it cannot be said that bus had entered the yard at 9.20 P.M.” Thus, the prosecution has established beyond doubt that the accused was driving the bus in question in a rash and negligent manner and it was on account of his lapse, the Bus struck against the cyclist which resulted into multiple serious injuries leading to his death on the spot. The petitioner has since retired from service in the year 2003. The Appellate Court had already reduced the sentence from one year to six months by taking a lenient view on account of his old age. Thus, the Court is of the opinion that the finding of the Courts below are based on the proper appreciation of the evidence and conviction of the petitioner is accordingly affirmed. The present revision petitioner is accordingly dismissed.

06.04.2010 (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge