O.P.Pradhan, J. - (1.) THIS revision by convict, Ansar is directed against the Judgment and order dated 3.10.1983 rendered by IVth Addl. Sessions Judge, Rae Bareilly in Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 1983 whereby he dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence, awarded to the revisionist by the learned Magistrate.
(2.) BRIEFLY speaking, the facts giving rise to this revision are that on 20.5.1982 at about 7.10 a.m., a minor girl aged about ten years, namely, Km. Mamta was crushed by a speeding bus bearing No. UBQ 8899 at Jagatpur crossing within the circle of Police Station Jagatpur, District Rae Bareilly. The unfortunate girl died on the spot and the driver of the bus sped away with bus. This occurrence was, however, witnessed by Rajendra Prasad, Hari Shankar. Guru Sharan Lal and Om Prakash Sharma. The first information report was lodged at 7.15 a.m. at Police Station Jagatpur on the same day by Om Prakash Sharma. The local police sprang into action and rang up the Police Station which was ahead on the way, the bus had been sped away by the driver. Accordingly, the aforesaid bus together with its driver was brought back to the Police Station Jagatpur within a few hours. The persons, who had witnessed the occurrence, had recognised the driver of the bus and accordingly they identified the revisionist as the driver of the bus which had crushed Km. Mamta. After investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the revisionist for his prosecution under Sections 279 and 304A, I.P.C. The trial was held in the Court of Ilnd Judicial Magistrate, Rae Bareilly who on a consideration of the evidence, adduced before him, found the revisionist guilty under Sections 279 and 304A, I.P.C. and sentenced him under Section 279, I.P.C. to undergo six months' R.I. and further sentenced him under Section 304A, I.P.C. to undergo one year and a half R.I. and pay fine of Rs. 2,000 and in default to undergo six months' more R.I. Dissatisfied with this order of conviction and sentence, an appeal was carried to the Court of Sessions. This gave rise to Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 1983. It was heard and dismissed by IVth Addl. Sessions Judge, Rae Bareilly, by means of the impugned order. Hence this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist as also the learned Addl. Government Advocate and perused the lower Court record. It has not been disputed that the unfortunate girl. Km. Mamta was crushed by a speeding bus at Jagatpur crossing on 20.5.1982 at 7.10 a.m. The only point debated before this Court by the learned counsel for the revisionist is that it is not established that the revisionist was the Driver of the bus which crushed the unfortunate girl. According to the learned counsel, no identification parade was conducted in the present case and the name of the driver had also not been disclosed in the first information report, lodged after the incident. It was, therefore, contended that the identity of the bus driver having not been established, the revisionist has been erroneously convicted and sentenced of the offences under Sections 279 and 304A, I.P.C. So far as the identity of the driver of the bus No. UBQ 8899 is concerned, the lower courts have found that the eye-witnesses, who were examined in this case, had recognised the bus driver, who had sped away the bus immediately after the incident and that they also identified the revisionist as the bus driver no sooner he was brought back with the aforesaid bus at the Police Station, Jagatpur. As already indicated earlier, the local police had intimated on telephone the next police station immediately after the report was lodged at 7.15 a.m. and, therefore, the aforesaid bus together with its driver was apprehended by the police and brought back to the Police Station, Jagatpur within a few hours of the incident. It further appears that the eye-witnesses and others who had witnessed the occurrence were sitting on a tea-stall situate besides the Road and they constituted a marriage party of which Km. Mamta was also a member. It, therefore, follows that the eye-witnesses who later on identified the revisionist as the bus driver must have stayed back at the place of occurrence till the formalities of inquest report etc. were completed by the investigating agency. It cannot be forgotten that an unfortunate minor girl, who was a member of the marriage-party had been crushed under a speeding bus and, therefore, there was hardly any question of the other members of leaving the place unless the initial formalities of investigation were completed.
(3.) OM Prakash Sharma, P.W. 2, Rajendra Prasad, P.W. 3 and Guru Sharan Lal P.W. 4 have clearly stated that each of them had recognized the driver of the bus and had also identified the revisionist as the driver of the bus after the bus together with its driver (revisionist) had been brought back to Jagatpur within a few hours of the incident. In this circumstance, there was hardly any question of test identification being held. The lower Courts have also rightly pointed out that there was no iota of evidence on record to indicate that the aforesaid bus was being driven at the relevant time by a person other than the revisionist. As usual. the revisionist made a wholesale denial of the prosecution allegations and pleaded his false implication. It has not been clarified how and why the revisionist was falsely involved in the present case. The lower courts have rightly rejected the defence plea of false implication. No other point has been raised before this Court in support of this revision. The conviction of the revisionist is well-founded and no interference with the same is called for in this revision.;