- (1.) NO body appears on behalf of the petitioner. On the last date of hearing also, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner and the matter was adjourned for today with a direction to the Registry to issue actual date notice to the petitioner for today. It is reported by the Registry that notice has been duly served upon the petitioner through his son, inspite of that, petitioner has chosen not to come present. In the circumstances, I have heard learned State counsel and have perused the record as also the grounds of revision pleaded by the petitioner.
(2.) IN the grounds of revision, the petitioner has stated that case of the prosecution is based on evidence of PW7 Constable Jasmail Singh but his presence at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because it has come in the evidence of PW8 ASI Gurcharan Singh that no police official was present at the place of occurrence. Further, PW7 Constable Jasmail Singh has failed to tell the actual colour of the bus and has also stated that driver of the bus did not try to run away but inspite of that, he was not arrested on the spot. These circumstances also render absence of Constable Jasmail Singh at the place of occurrence highly doubtful. It has also been contended that no test identification parade was held to fix identity of the petitioner as author of the occurrence though such an identification parade was necessary as Suraj Kali wife of the deceased has failed to identify the appellant as the person responsible for causing the occurrence.
(3.) LEARNED State counsel, however, defends the impugned judgment/order and submits that in the evidence of PW7 Constable Jasmail Singh, the occurrence as well as identity of the petitioner as author of the occurrence have been sufficiently proved and that being so holding of the identification parade was unnecessary and the petitioner cannot be allowed any benefit of failure of PW3 Suraj Kali to identify the petitioner as driver of the ill -fated bus. Fact situation of the case as noticed by the learned Appellate Court is as under: - Succinctly speaking facts of prosecution case are that on 17.7.2000 at about 11 A.M. in area of New Bus Stand, Bathinda, complainant Suraj Kali suffered statement before police to the effect that she came to Bus Stand, Bathinda, where her husband Mohan Lal is Rickshaw Puller. Complainant contacted other Rickshaw Puller Hari Ram, who disclosed as if Mohan Lal had gone to Civil Hospital, Bathinda by taking passenger Rickshaw. Complainant along with Hari Ram stood in wait in front of shop at Bus Stand, Bathinda. In the mean while husband of complainant returned from Civil Hospital, Bathinda and he stopped his Rickshaw on seeing red light of traffic on. Then at about 11 AM one Mini Bus bearing Registration No. PB -03 -D -5717 came from side of Civil Hospital Bathinda in rash and negligent manner and the same struck against Rickshaw driven by Mohan Lal, as a result of which he fell on the metalled road and sustained injuries. Mohan Lal died on the spot. Bus driver came down from the bus and he disclosed his name as Major Singh. After recording this statement, endorsement made on which FIR registered. Site Plan of place of accident prepared. Inquest report prepared and postmortem of dead body got conducted. Blood stained and simple earth picked up from the spot converted into parcels each of which sealed with GS and those were taken in possession vide memo. Bus as well as Rickshaw taken in possession. Appellant produced on next day before police and he was arrested. Mechanical test of bus got conducted. After completion of investigation, challan against appellant presented.;