In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Crl. Revision No.603 of 2002
Date of decision: November 18, 2008
Kaur Singh
... Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab
... Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal
Present: Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate Amicus Curiae
for the petitioner.
Mr. R.S. Rawat, AAG, Punjab
for the respondent.
A.N. Jindal, J
Accused-petitioner Kaur Singh (herein referred as 'the
petitioner') while driving bus bearing registration No.PB-03D-5576, caused
two causalities on 26.7.1997, as a sequel of which he was tried and vide
judgment dated 11.8.1999 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Gidderbaha, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
two years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 304-A IPC and to
further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 279
IPC. However, the Appellate Court reduced the sentence of imprisonment
to one year under Section 304-A IPC.
Factual matrix of the case is that on 26.7.1997 at about 8.30
a.m. Major Singh complainant (herein referred as 'the complainant') was
standing at the bus stand of the village Chhattaina for going to Gidderbaha.
In the meantime, Kartar Singh while driving jeep bearing registration
No.HR-22A-2963 and carrying Charanjit Singh, Baljinder Singh and Nasib
Kaur came there. The complainant took the lift for going to Gidderbaha,
however, when they reached near the brick kiln in the area of village Kot
Bhai, the petitioner, while driving the aforesaid bus belonging to Dabwali
Transport Company, came from the opposite side and dashed against the
jeep, as an impact of which all the occupants of the jeep including Nasib
Kaur suffered injuries. Kartar Singh died at the spot, whereas, Nasib Kaur
Crl. Revision No.603 of 2002 -2-
***
died at D.M.C. Ludhiana. On the statement made by Major Singh (Ex.PF)
FIR was recorded. The case was investigated and completion of the
investigation was followed by a presentation of the challan.
The petitioner was charged under Sections 304-A, 337,338,279
IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest.
In order to connect the petitioner with the crime, the
prosecution examined Darshan Singh (PW1), Dr. H.N. Singh (PW2), Major
Singh (PW3) Baljinder Singh (PW4), Charanjit Singh (PW5), ASI Jarnail
Singh (PW6), Dr. Ravinder Kumar Kamboj (PW7), Des Raj (PW8) and
Jawahar Lal (PW9).
In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the petitioner denied
all the allegations and pleaded his false implication. However, no evidence
was led in defence.
The trial ended in conviction. The appeal filed by him was
dismissed with certain modification in the sentence.
Arguments heard. Record perused.
As regards the first contention raised by Mr. Neeraj Khanna,
Advocate Amicus Curiae in this case, regarding identification of the
petitioner, it deserves notice that the accident took place in the day time at
about 8.30 a.m. The witnesses had identified the petitioner, so as the
complainant. The complainant was not knowing his name, therefore, he
rightly recorded in the FIR that he came to know about his name later on.
The complainant in his statement has testified that he already knew the
petitioner as he had seen him previously on the wheels of the said bus. The
case cannot be said to be of doubtful identity as his name figures in the
FIR. Baljinder Singh (PW4) and Charanjit Singh (PW5) have corroborated
the testimony of Major Singh complainant (PW3). No animus, bias or
prejudice has been alleged or proved against the petitioner in order to dub
the witnesses to be interested or inimical. No particular defence was set up
by the accused so as to belie the prosecution version in any manner.
I also do not find any merit in the other contention that ruqa
Ex.PC discloses that the injured was got admitted by Baljinder Singh son of
Mithu Singh, whereas, the prosecution examined Baljinder Singh son of Jit
Singh. Similarly, Major Singh complainant was recorded as son of Tara
Crl. Revision No.603 of 2002 -3-
***
Singh, whereas, his father’s name is Gurbachan Singh. It was also pointed
out from ruqa Ex.PC that one child was also present and was admitted in the
hospital, whereas, according to the prosecution no child suffered injuries in
the said accident.
Having scrutinized the evidence on record, the aforesaid
discrepancies with regard to the mistake of names or the suffering of the
injuries by the child hardly effect the substratum of the present case. All the
injured witnesses have been examined and they cannot be said to have not
suffered injuries at the time of the accident as the medical reports
corroborate this fact, rather the mistake in the name of their father appears
to have creeped in due to some clerical mistake on the part of the doctor. So
as the reference with regard to arrival of the child is concerned, Charanjit
Singh was 12 years of age at the time of incident, therefore, reference with
regard to arrival of the child may be pertaining to him.
As regards the argument that Major Singh and Charanjit Singh
were not medically examined, it does not lend any support to the version set
up by the defence as where there are many injured, then the people with the
minor injuries are seldom examined.
In the instant case two persons had died and many persons were
injured. Des Raj (PW8) had proved on record registration of the bus
involved in the accident. Jawahar Lal (PW9) had proved the photographs
Ex.P6 to Ex.P11 and negatives thereof as Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. Darshan Singh
Mechanic (PW1) had mechanically examined both the vehicles involved in
the accident and proved his reports as Ex.PA and Ex.PB in this respect.
Even otherwise, there are concurrent findings both the courts below
regarding the rash and negligent act of the petitioner for commission of the
crime. Nothing such was brought to the surface so as to disturb the findings
of fact returned by both the courts below.
As regards the plea with regard to extending benefit of
probation, since two lives were lost and many other suffered injuries on
account of rash and negligent driving by the petitioner, and if he had been
little careful then the accident could be avoided, therefore, he could not be
extended this benefit, rather imparting of such benefit would amount to
travesty of justice and send wrong signals to the society. The Apex Court
Crl. Revision No.603 of 2002 -4-
***
in case Dalbir Singh vs. State of Haryana 2000 (2) RCR (Criminal) 816
also discouraged extending such benefit while observing as under :-
“13. Bearing in mind the galloping trend in road accidents in
India and the devastating consequences visiting the victims and
their families, criminal courts cannot treat the nature of the
offence under Section 304-A IPC as attracting the benevolent
provisions of Section 4 of the PO Act. While considering the
quantum of sentence, to be imposed for the offence of causing
death by rash and negligent driving of automobiles, one of the
prime considerations should be deterrence. A professional
driver pedals the accelerator of the automobile almost
throughout his working hours. He must constantly inform
himself that he cannot be afforded to have a single moment of
laxity or inattentiveness when his leg is on the pedal of a
vehicle in locomotion. He cannot and should not take a chance
thinking that a rash driving need not necessarily cause any
accident; or even if any accident occurs it need not necessarily
result in the death of any human being; or even if such death
ensues he might not be convicted of the offence; and lastly that
even if he is convicted he would be dealt with leniently by the
court. He must always keep in his mind the fear psyche that if
he is convicted of the offence for causing death of a human
being due to his callous driving of vehicle he cannot escape
from jail sentence. This is the role which the courts can play,
particularly at the level of trial courts, for lessening the high
rate of motor accidents due to callous driving of automobiles.”
Similar observations have been made by the Apex Court in
case B.Nagabhushanam vs. State of Karnataka, 2008 (3) RCR (Criminal)
50, while relying upon Dalbir Singh’s case (supra).
In view of the above, the request forwarded by the learned
counsel for the petitioner for extending benefit of probation is declined.
Crl. Revision No.603 of 2002 -5-
***
Resultantly, the instant petition stands dismissed. The
impugned judgment is maintained.
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muktsar is directed to take steps to
procure the custody of the petitioner for serving remaining part of his
sentence.
November 18, 2008 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge