Balraj Singh @ Jaggi vs State Of Uttarakhand

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J

This Revision has been preferred by the revisionist, who is the driver of the Bus, bearing Registration No. UP27-5950, which had caused the accident. The bus was being driven from Pilibhit and the accident has occurred on 05.08.2002, near Gori Khera Tiraha, Village Amria, District Udham Singh Nagar.

The facts as involved in the case are that one Mr. Tarsem Singh had lodged an F.I.R., being Case Crime No.295/02, under Sections 279, 304-A and 427 IPC at Thana Sitarganj on 05.08.2002 to the effect that his brother Bariyam Singh, who was riding a Suzuki Max Motor Cycle, was travelling from Sitarganj. Along with him, one Mr. Trilochak Singh of village Pipliya Nathu, Police Station Sitarganj was also travelling as a pillion rider and were going to Village Jamgain. As soon as the motor cycle reached at Gori Khera Tiraha at about 5:30 p.m., a bus, which was coming from Amria, Pilibhit Road, bearing registration No. UP27-5950, which was driven by the revisionist, has met with the accident with the motor cycle causing death of Bariyam Singh on the spot.

Consequently, on the basis of the report submitted on 5.08.2002, which was submitted by Tarsem Singh, brother of the deceased Bariyam Singh, the proceedings by way of Criminal Case No. 1493 of 2008, State Vs. Balraj Singh, was initiated against the revisionist for the commission of offence under Sections 279, 304-A and 427 of the I.P.C. During the course of trial, the prosecution in support of their case, had produced complainant Tarsem Singh as PW1, pillion rider, Trilochak Singh, who was the eyewitness as PW2, Sub Inspector Rajvir Singh as PW4 and Dr. H.C. Bhatt, as PW5 and other witnesses were also adduced before the Trial Court.

Unfortunately, there is nothing on record to show that the revisionist has led any evidence to show and contribute that negligence to the deceased rider of the motor cycle. As per the statement recorded by the prosecution, Trilochak Singh PW2, who was a pillion rider of the motor cycle on the ill fated day, i.e. 5th August, 2002, had stated that it was the bus, which was being driven rashly and negligently resulting into the death of Bariyam Singh on the spot on 05.08.2002.

The argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist is just to the contrary to the effect that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle by Bariyam Singh, which has colluded against the bus, which was driven by the revisionist.

This argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist cannot be accepted in view of the consideration of the statement of PW5 Dr. H.C. Bhatt, who conducted the autopsy of the deceased and has recorded the finding pertaining to the injuries caused on his body, which was the cause of death. On examination of the deceased, Dr. H.C. Bhatt, has found the following injuries :-

"1. फटा हुआ धाव 20 गुणा 6 सेमी गुणा खोपडी के अन्दर तक दाये से बाये तक जा रहा था। जबडा चेहरा और भाथा की हडिडयां टूटी थी और मस्तिण्क और उसकी झिल्लियां टुकडें, टुकडे हुये थे।

2 नीलगू चोट 30 सेमी गुणा 30 सेमी छाती के सामने।

फटा हुआ धाव दायी बाजू के बाहरी तरफ अन्दर की दोनो हडिडयां टूटी थी।

नीलगू घाव 10 सेमी दाये घुटने के आगे घुटने की जोड की हडिडयां टूटी हुई थी।

मस्तिण्क के टुकडे टुकडे हुये थे। खोपडी की हडिडयां टूटी थी, छाती की दूसरी से आठवी हडडी तक दोनो तरफ हडिडया टूटी थी दाये व बाये फेफडा झिलिया सहित कटे फटे थे, जिस दोनो कक्षों में खून नही था। पेट में गाढा पेस्ट के रूप में 200 मिली पचा हुआ खाना था।"

Perusal of the injuries shows that the bus was being driven rashly and negligently by the revisionist. Hence, the revisionist would be liable for an offence under Section 279 I.P.C. Simultaneously, considering the fact that as a consequence of rash and negligent driving of the bus, it has resulted into the death of Bariyam Singh on the spot, quite obviously, the offence under Section 304-A I.P.C. will also made out against the present revisionist, because it has resulted into the death caused on account of the injuries, which was suffered by the deceased as a consequence of the accident, which has chanced on 05.08.2002.

After having considered the statement as recorded by the prosecution witnesses and also considering the fact that the revisionist has not discharged his responsibility to show that motor cycle was being driven rashly and negligently as he was not produced any evidence to the contrary and considering the nature of the injuries, it would be presumed that it was the revisionist, who was responsible for rash and negligent driving, which has resulted into the accident and, ultimately, death of Bariyam Singh on spot.

Considering the reason, which has been shown in the impugned order dated 20th August, 2009 and the circumstances which has been dealt with by the learned Court below, this Court has got no reason to disbelieve the finding, which has been recorded while passing the order of conviction, thus, the judgment of conviction does not, at all, suffers from any legal vices, for the reasons that the finding, which was recorded was as per the witnesses adduced by the prosecution stands established.

Consequently, this Court is not in agreement with the argument as extended by the learned counsel for the revisionist regarding deceased driving the motor cycle negligently and rashly. Thus, this Revision fails and is accordingly dismissed.

The accused/revisionist is on bail. He is directed to surrender forthwith before the Magistrate concerned and would be taken into custody in order to serve the sentence of his conviction as inflicted upon him by the impugned order under challenge in the present Revision. The sureties, which have been extended by the revisionist at the time, when bail was granted, would stand discharged.

Consequently, for the reasons assigned above, the Revision fails and is accordingly dismissed. The orders of conviction are affirmed.