The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for credible evidence to support a conviction under the Indian Penal Code.

Ajit Singh Bains, J.

1. The petitioner was convicted ulider sec. 279 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. He was also convicted under section 304. ,1. , Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 1/2 years, and to pay a fine of Rs.500.00 , TN Id in default of payment of fine to undergo fu their rigorous imprisonment for six months, be the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon. However, the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon upheld the conviction and sentences imposed upon the petitioner by the learned trial Court. He has challenged his convictions arid sentences under both the counts, by way of this revision petition.

2. The prosecution case, as set up at the trial was that on 2nd September, 1979 at about 3.30 or 4.00 p. m. Virender Singh (since deceased) was going on his cycle when the petitioner came from behind driving his truck No. DHG-2770 at a. fast speed and hit Virender Singh, as a result of which the latter sustained injuries and died soon after. It is alleged that the occurrence was witnessed by maha Singh P. W.5 and Mahabir.

3. The injured was taken to Civil Hospital, Gurgaon, by the petitioner himself, but he died on the way, as is stated in the doctors rukka Exhibit DA which was sent to the police. On receipt of this rukka, H. C. Uma Chand went to the hospital and recorded the statement Exhibit PC of Mahabir. On the basis of his statement, formal F. I. R. Exhibit PB was recorded at Police Station, Sadar, g u rg a on.

4. At the trial, the petitioner denied the prosecution allegations, but admitted the act of accident and explained that it was due to the negligence of the deceased himself, who had suddenly taken a turn towards the right. He denied that he was driving the truck rashly or negligently.

5. The prosecution case rests on the testimony of Maha Singh P. W.5. Mahabir has not been produced by the prosecution in spite of the opportunities. The testimony of Maha Singh P. W.5. does not inspire confidence, although he has supported the prosecution version. Maha Singh P. W.5. belongs to the village of deceased. He seems to have supported the prosecution only because the deceased belonged to his village. His presence at the spot seems to be doubtful. In his examination-in chief Maha Singh P. W.5 stated that the deceased was brought to the hospital in an ambulance by him, whereas Exhibit DA (rukka sent by the doctor to the police) reads as under to the Station House Officer, Thana Sadar, Gurgaon. Unknown dead body is brought by Abhey Singh (driver) Truck No. DHG2770 at 4.45 p. m. No pulse. No palpitation of heart. This accident had occurred near the Air Force Office, Delhi road This is for your information and necessary action. O. D. No.21 dated 2-9-1979. Sd!doctor. The aforesaid rukka sent by the doctor to the police completely faisifies the evidence of Maha Singh p. W.5, who says that he had accompanied the deceased to the hospital. Had he been there, he would have definitely given the name and parentage of the deceased to the doctor and further it would have been mentioned by the doctor that the deceased was brought by Maha Singh P. W.5. In fact, Virender Singh was taken by the petitioner himself to the hospital as is clear from the rukka Exhibit DA. The conduct of the petitioner also goes a long way in absolving him from the crime. He had stopped the truck and taken Virender Singh to the hospital. Had he been guilty he would not have stopped the truck and might have escaped. Generally the truck and bus drivers do not stop their vehicles after the accident. It is very rarely that they act in the manner as the petitioner did in the present case.

6. For the reasons recorded above, I am of the view that it is not safe to maintain the conviction of the petitioner. Accordingly, he is given the benefit of doubt and acquitt