SANTOSH DUGGAL, J.

( 1 ) ORAL.- This criminal revision petition is directed against the dismissal of the petitioner s appeal by judgment dated 10th May, 1979 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, upholding his conviction under sections 2791304-A of the Indian Penal Code by judgment dated 16th March, 1979, recorded by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi.

( 2 ) THE facts in so far as relevant briefly are that the petitioner was sent up for trial on the allegation that while driving bus bearing No. D. L. P. 5285 on Ring Road on 21st August, 1975 at about 10 a. m. , he ran over one pedestrian named Jagan Ram and caused his death by rash and negligent driving on the public road. It was alleged that the accused came driving on the road at a very fast speed and while Jagan Ram was crossing the road, struck him down and crushed him under both the wheels of the bus and then fled away with the bus. The injured was found to have died on the spot. Subsequently, the owner of the bus pursuant to a notice served on him under Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act revealed that the present petitioner was driver of the bus at the relevant time. It was on the basis of this information that the present petitioner was arrested. The case had been earlier registered on the basis of statement given by one eye witness named Krishan Pal, (P. W. 6 ).

( 3 ) DURING trial besides Krishan Pal on whole statement, (Ex. Public Witness 6a), the case was registered, another witness namely, Multani Ram (P. W. 1), was examined, both of whom deposed to have witnessed the accident. On the basis of their testimony, identifying the accused before the Court as driver of the bus, and on the basis of the information supplied by the owner of the bus and proved in court as Ex. Public Witness 13a; the trial court held it proved that the accused before him was responsible for this accident, and that since the same was a result of rash and negligent driving, he held the accused before him, guilty of the offences under sections 279/304a of the Indian Penal Code.

( 4 ) ON appeal taken against this conviction, the learned Additional Sessions Judge while upholding the contention that the information supplied by the owner vide Ex. Public Witness 13a was not substantive evidence inasmuch as he had not. corroborated the same in Court, nevertheless dismissed the appeal, placing reliance on the oral testimony of Public Witness 1 and Public Witness 6; namely Multani Ram and Krishan Pal.

( 5 ) THE plea now in this criminal revision, as advanced by Mr. Bhanvir Singh appearing for the petitioner, is that the whole case is that of mistaken identity, and that there was no legal evidence before the courts below to hold that the present petitioner was the driver of the bus, and that it was he who had caused accident, resulting in the death of pedestrian, Jagan Ram. It may be noted that no one appeared for the State in spite of the matter being on Daily Board. Eventually it is being disposed of on the basis of arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, and on my own perusal of the record and in the light of the legal position on the subject.

( 6 ) IT is noteworthy that neither Krishan Pal Public Witness 6 who is author of the F. I. R. , nor Multani Ram Public Witness 1 knew the accused earlier to the date of the accident. There is thus reason for there being no reference to the accused by name in the F. I. R.

( 7 ) IT is further pertinent to note that there is absolutely no description of the driver of the bus, either in the aforesaid F. I. R. statement i. e. Public Witness 6a, or by the other witness Public Witness 1 in his statement to the police. This witness; namely, Multani Ram dis. closes that he did not pass over any description of the driver to the police for the reason that the bus had been driving very fast and he had not been able to properly see the driver. Krishan Pal no doubt said that he had seen the driver while the vehicle was moving and that he had ment

Click Here to Read the rest of this document