Judgment:
V.B. Bansal, J.
1. Mahabir Singh who was a driver of Mini Bus No. DLP 5690 on 6th December, 1979 was convicted for the offences under Sections 279/304IPC vide judgment dated 8th June, 1987 and was sentenced to R.I. for two years with a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default to undergo S.I. for four months vide order dated 12th June, 1987 by a M.M. Delhi.
2. The allegations against the petitioner has been that on 6th December, 1979 at about 9.00 P.M. while driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner caused the death of a pedestrian named Bhagwan Dass. He filed an appeal in the Sessions Court which was dismissed by an Additional Sessions Judge Delhi vide judgment dated 14th January, 1991.
3. Being not satisfied with the finding of the Courts below Mahabir Singh has filed this revision.
4. The case of the prosecution has been that on 6th December, 1979, D.D. No. 26-A was recorded at Police Station Kingsway Camp at 9.45 P.M. to the effect that one pedestrian met with an accident with a mini bus near DTC booth Rana Partap Bagh. The investigation was taken up by S.I. Ramesh Pal Singh who did not find any eye witness at the spot nor the vehicle involved in the accident was available. Proceedings were taken and during the course of the investigation statement of one Puran Mai was recorded who claimed himself to be an eye witness of the incident and alleged that the mini bus No. DLP 5690 was drived by the petitioner in a rash and negligent manner at a fast speed hitting the pedestrian causing his death. Mini bus DLP 5690 was seized and was got mechanically inspected. The petitioner was arrested who refused to participate in the test identification parade. The investigation revealed that it was bus No. DLP 5690 driven by the accused which was involved in the accident and the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the petitioner was responsible for causing the death of the aforesaid pedestrian B hag wan Dass.
5. The plea taken up by the petitioner in his statement recorded by the trial Court was that though he was driving the said bus at the relevant time but was not involved in the accident and that he has falsely been implicated in this case. He examined two witnesses in defense. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court as well as by the appellate Court.
6. I have heard Sodhi Teja Singh learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri R.K. Bahri learned Counsel for the respondent and have also carefully gone through the record.
7. There can possibly be no dispute with regard to the legal proposition that the scope for interference in the revision petition is limited. Counsel for the petitioner has, however, submitted that it is a case of no evidence against the petitioner and injustice has, in fact, been done to the petitioner by conviction. He has also submitted that there has not been any valid Explanationn on record for Puran Mai alleged eye witness being not reporting the matter to the police at the earliest and there is no valid Explanationn for the delay in recording his statement. I have given my thoughtful consideration to all these submissions in the light of the evidence on record and have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the conviction of the petitioner cannot be sustained.
8. It is the admitted case of the prosecution that no eye witness of the occurrence was available to the Investigating Officer when he came to the spot after recording of DD No. 26A. It is not clear as to how and in what manner the Investigation Officer was able to con tact Puran Mal the said eye witness of the occurrence. As per the testimony of Puran Mai (PW7) he waited at the spot for about 15minutes and then went to his house and 2-3days later he came to the spot and met the relations of the deceased who took him to the police station where he informed the police about the manner in which the accident had taken place. However, in the cross-examination he has claimed that police met him on the next day at bus stop and that his statement was recorded fn the police station. The Investigating Officer in his statement as PW15 was not sure as to on which date the statement of this witness was recorded and whether the witness met him on 7th and 8th December, 1979 or not. None of the relations of the deceased has been examined to corroborate the testimony of Puran Mai about his meeting the relations of the deceased and accompanying them to the police station. It has clearly been admitted by Puran Mal that he was illiterate and claimed that he remembered the number of the bus only from his memory. He was, however, unable to give other important dates like date of Diwali of the previous year. No reasonable Explanationn has been offered by Puran Mal as to why he did not report the matter to the police if he was actually present at the scene of occurrence and what prompted him thereafter to go to the police station especially when there is a discrepancy in the statement of this witness and the case of the prosecution about the date on which he made a statement to the Investigating Officer.
9. It may also be noticed at this stage that during the course of the investigation the Investigating Officer arranged to get mini bus DLT 5576 and its driver in the police station in connection with the investigation of this case. However, the I.O. does not throw any light during his statement as PW15 as to under what circumstances the bus and the driver were brought in during the investigation of this case and what prompted him to let the driver of the said bus go along with the said bus. In these circumstances, the plea taken up by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the possibility of another bus being involved in the accident and not the bus of the petitioner cannot be said to be without substance.
10. As a result, the revision petition is accepted. Conviction and sentence of the petitioner are set aside. Giving him the benefit of doubt Mahabir Singh petitioner is acquitted. The petitioner shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Fine, if paid, shall be returned.