Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Learned State counsel has argued that statement of Dr. Nazar Singh PW2 duly proves that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending bus by the petitioner. It was a single road though wide enough and the petitioner in the process of overtaking a three- wheeler, hit the motorcycle coming from the opposite side resulting in death of both occupants of the motorcycle. At the time of accident, bus was on right hand side of the road and motorcycle was on it's correct left hand side. Dr. Nazar Singh has no where stated that petitioner was not rash and negligent while driving the bus. It is proved on record that petitioner has also caused accident resulting in death of a person and was convicted and sentenced in case bearing FIR No.10 dated 21.01.2010, registered at Police Station City Malerkotla. This submission of learned counsel for the 4 of 11 petitioner has no merits that sentences awarded to him in both the cases should run concurrently as he was convicted and sentenced in two separate and independent incidents.

Firstly, I look into the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the correctness of observations of Courts below that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending bus by the petitioner. Learned Appellate Court while appreciating statement of PW2 Dr. Nazar Singh has observed in para 14 as follows:-

"14- Accused has not disputed that he is an employee of Libra Bus Service to which the offending Bus belonged. PW2 stated that he had seen accused at the spot. Accordingly he was identified in court also. It was enough an evidence for prosecution to establish the identity of accused driver of offending Bus. The argument of Ld. Counsel for appellant raised now that no time-table of said Bus or route duty was brought on file seems without any force. Accused himself admitted the presence of offending Bus at the spot. It also is visible in the above noted photographs. Accused also admitted the collision of this Bus with ill-fated motorcycle and death of both its riders. Additionally, PW2 complainant also identified the accused as the wrongdoer. Latter, therefore, could produce abovesaid evidence regarding time-table, route duty etc. from his employer to show his non-presence and his duty at some other place on the fateful day. Nothing was done by him in this regard. He can not be given any benefit for non-bringing of such evidence by ignoring the deposition of PW2 who categorically identified him as driver of offending bus." A note was also taken of the fact that the offending bus has 5 of 11 gone extra yards to its right while crossing the vehicle going ahead of it. On perusal of the statement of Dr. Nazar Singh, who appeared as PW2, I find that he is the natural witness of the occurrence. He was going behind the offending bus and stated that petitioner was driving the bus in rash and negligent manner, who while attempting to overtake a vehicle, hit the motorcycle coming from the opposite side, resulting in death of both the occupants of the motorcycle. He has stated that bus was at slow speed but this bald statement is not sufficient to absolve the petitioner, when he has stated that he was following the bus at the speed of 60-70 kmph. The three- wheeler which, bus of the petitioner was trying to overtake, was at the speed of 40-50 kmph. The speed is to be seen as per the site where accident took place. On a two-lane highway, the speed of even 100 kmph may not be termed as rash driving and at a crowded place, speed of 40 kmph may be termed as rash driving. The rashness and the negligence of the petitioner is evident from the fact that while attempting to cross the three-wheeler, he had not taken care of the motorcycle coming from the opposite direction and hit the same. While overtaking, the driver of a vehicle is required to be very cautious. The vehicle, which is overtaking, comes on the wrong side of the road, thereby, obstructing the passage of the vehicles coming from the opposite side. The driver, who is overtaking has to ensure before attempting the overtaking that he has enough free passage on the other side and the vehicle coming from the opposite side will not be hit or obstructed. In this case, petitioner without bothering about this fact, tried to overtake a three- wheeler and in the process hit the motorcycle, resulting in death of two young boys.