Swaran Singh vs State of Punjab

A.S. Garg, J.

On 3.6.1985, deceased Satbir Singh was coming on a motor cycle bearing No. PHR 5860 from the side of Jagraon towards Mullanpur, on FerozepurLudhiana road. On the way near the pipe factory a tempo bearing No. PJI 2455 was lying parked on the extreme left side of the road. At the same time a bus bearing No. PJG 2806 driven by the petitioner came from the opposite direction i.e. from side of Ludhiana. This bus was claimed to be coming at an excessive speed and hit the motor cycle driven by Satbir Singh, who died at the spot. Abninder Singh PW. 2 was said to be proceeding behind the motor cyclist. One Gurnam Singh, PW.6 also alleged to have witnessed the occurrence. On the other hand Bhag Singh, DW.1 was also present on the scene of occurrence.

The trial Court as well as the learned lower appellate Court held the petitionerdriver of the bus liable for the accident and convicted him under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one and a half years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/ under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. However, no separate sentence was awarded to the petitioner under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code.

The claim of the defence had been that Abninder Singh a relation of the deceased was called from the village to become a witness. According to the learned counsel he was not present at the spot. It has also come in the statement of Bhag Singh, DW.1, that in fact the motor cyclist was coming at a high speed and he of his own hit the motor cycle with the bus as he was not able to control the same. The version of the petitioner has also been that he was driving the bus at a normal speed and he did not cause any accident. According to him, there was ample space for the motor cyclist to have his way but in fact he hit the motor cycle with the bus because he in fact was driving at a high speed.

There is no sufficient version contained in the statements of the prosecution witnesses that the bus was being driven at a very high speed or in a rash and negligent manner. Only because there had been a collusion between the two vehicles, it cannot be presumed that the fault was that of the petitioner. Nor the petitioner is presumed to be driving the vehicle at an excessive speed. There cannot be presumption against the heavy vehicle that it was being driven recklessly. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner cannot be sustained. The revision petition is allowed and he is acquitted of the charges framed against him.

Revision allowed.