The court affirmed that reliable testimony from a solitary witness can suffice for conviction, even amidst conflicting statements from other witnesses regarding negligence causing death.

JUDGMENT :

Praveer Bhatnagar, J.

1. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1995 and the present criminal revision is pending since the year 2005.

2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 29.04.2005, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellate Court’) in Criminal Appeal No.97/2004 (Old No.78/2004), whereby, the learned Appellate Court has upheld the judgment dated 09.11.2004, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Jhunjhubnu in Criminal Case No.312/1995, whereby the revisionist- petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under:-

3. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Karni Ram has submitted a Parcha Bayan (P-11) to the effect that he was manager of Sarvodya Coaching School, Jhunjhunu and on 11.05.1995 at about 11:00 A.M., when he was going to his village Kodesar from Jhunjhunu in Bus, which was full of passengers and driven by one Anil brother of the bus-owner Pitram Jat and due to his rashness and negligence, the said bus lost its control, for which the complainant and other passengers were sustained severe injuries and two persons died on the spot.

4. On the basis of the said parcha bayan an F.I.R. No.154/95 was registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Jhunjhunu for the offences under Sections 279 , 337, 338 and 304A of IPC. During the course of investigation, Police recorded statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation Police filed challan for the offences under Sections 279 , 337, 338, 304A of IPC and Section 3 & 4/181 of Motor Vehicle Act before the competent court.

5. Thereafter trial Court framed charges against the accused- petitioner but he denied the same and claimed to be tried. During trial, prosecution examined 20 witnesses and produced various documents in support of its case. The accused, upon being confronted with the prosecution allegations, in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied the allegations and prosecution evidence. The trial Court, after hearing both the parties, passed an order of conviction and sentence dated 09.11.2004.

6. Aggrieved from the order dated 09.11.2004, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate Court and the appellate Court vide its order dated 29.04.2005, dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of the learned court below. Hence, this revision petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that there is no evidence whatsoever for conviction of the petitioner, and the Courts below, despite non-corroboration from the material witnesses, counted upon the testimony of the sole witness PW 18 Sheesh Pal Singh and convicted the petitioner.

8. The courts below further leaned on the testimony of PW-14 Karniram who did not support the prosecution version that the accused petitioner was driving the vehicle and the accident arose due to the driver's rash and speedy driving. Therefore, the conviction documented by the courts below suffers from perversity.

9. Learned Public Prosecutor justifie