Judgement

BHAGWATI. J. :- This appeal by special leave is directed against an order made by the High Court of Delhi rejecting a Revision Application preferred against an appellate order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Delhi confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code.

2. One Dass Singh (hereinafter referred to as the deceased ) according to the prosecution case as unfolded in the evidence of three witnesses, viz. Mukhtiar Singh, P. W. 2. Om Parkash. P. W. 3 and Jagir Singh, P. W. 5. who were eye witnesses to the incident was going on a cycle along the Rohtak Road from west to east at about10 a.m. on 16th June 1966. When the deceased came near Liberty Cinema which is situate on the southern side of the Rohtak Road, he turned to the right in order to enter Road No. 6 after giving signal with his hand. It may be mentioned that here at this point Road No. 6 coming from the south meets Rohtak Road so that the Liberty Cinema on its north abuts on the Rohtak Road and on its east abuts on Road No. 6. The deceased had almost crossed Rohtak Road after turning to his right when suddenly D.T.U. bus bearing number DLP 46 driven bv the appellant came at a fast and excessive speed from the opposite direction and struck against the cycle of the deceased and ran over him causing multiple injuries resulting in his death. This incident was witnessed by Mukhtiar Singh P. W. 2 who was following on a cycle just behind the deceased. There were also two other eye-witnesses to this incident, viz , Om Parkash P. W. 3 who was standing on the foot-path in front of Liberty Cinema at the time of the incident and Jagir Singh P. W. 5 who was also standing near the site of the incident.

3. The appellant was prosecuted for an offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code for causing the death of the deceased by rash or negligent driving, in the Court of the first class Magistrate. Delhi Mukhtiar Singh P. W. 2. Om Parkash P.W. 3 and Jagir Singh P.W.5 were examined as witnesses on behalf of the prosecution as witnesses deposed to the incident as narrated above. The prosecution also examined Sub-Inspector Bishanpal P.W.10 who investigated the case and this witness produced the site-plan, Exhibit P. W. 10/8 prepared by him. The appellant in his defence examined three witnesses who were alleged to be passengers travelling in the bus at the time of the incident and these three witnesses stated that the cyclist who was coming from the opposite direction suddenly turned towards the right and struck against the bus and consequently he was dragged with the bus for some distance and the appellant brought the bus to a halt on the Passengers raising an alarm. The appellant was examined under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and what is stated in his examination is rather important. He stated in answer to question put to him by the learned Magistrate: "when I heard an alarm to the effect stop stop . I stopped the bus. I did not see any cyclist being knocked down by the bus." Then in answer to another question he added "I did not see the deceased being dragged. When I heard the alarm I stopped the bus immediately." The Learned Magistrate on this evidence held that the appellant was negligent in driving the bus and that the death of the deceased was caused on account of such negligent driving and the appellant was, therefore, guilty of the offence under Section 304-A. The appellant was accordingly convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for 18 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1.000/- or in default of payment of fine, to suffer further imprisonment for three months.

4. The appellant preferred an appeal against the order of conviction and sentence to the Sessions Court, Delhi. The learned Additional Sessions Judge who heard the appeal, on re-assessment of the evidence, came to the same conclusion as the learned Magistrate and confirmed the conviction of the appellant under Se