Crl. Revision No.1387 of 2002 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Revision No.1387 of 2002
Decided on 10.3.2009.
Manjit Singh Versus State of Haryana
Present : Mr. K.D.S.Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. K.S.Godara, D.A.G. Haryana.
L.N.MITTAL,J. (Oral)
Manjit Singh has filed this revision petition challenging his
conviction and sentence ordered by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Faridabad vide judgment and order dated 30.5.2001 and order dated
31.5.2001 as affirmed in appeal with reduction in sentence by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad vide judgment dated 10.7.2002.
Learned trial Magistrate convicted the petitioner under Section 304-A of
the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC) and sentenced him to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.4000/- and in
default thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months.
In appeal, learned Additional Sessions Judge reduced the sentence of
imprisonment from one year to nine months while maintaining the fine
amount.
According to the prosecution version, on 7.7.1997 at night,
Nasroo (since deceased), Jagmal and Ramjan hired a canter No.RJ-02G-
3839 for transporting stones from Seekri in Rajasthan to bring it to a village
Crl. Revision No.1387 of 2002 2
in District Gurgoan. Stones were loaded in the body of the canter and
above-said three persons sat on the stones. The petitioner was driving the
aforesaid canter rashly and negligently. The aforesaid persons asked him to
drive the canter at slow speed but the petitioner did not care. At about 4.00
a.m. near Elson Cotton Mill Chowk, Ballabgarh, the canter over-turned on
its left side. Nasroo, Jagmal and Ramjan fell down. Nasroo was buried
under the stones, Jagmal and Ramjan pulled him out and removed him to
Government Hospital, Ballabgarh, and then to Government Hospital,
Faridabad. Nasroo lodged FIR by making statement to the police. Nasroo,
however, succumbed to his injuries on 9.7.1997.
The prosecution examined three witnesses. Dr.Subhash
Wadhwa, (PW-1) stated about medico-legal examination of Nasroo.
Dr.Arvind (PW-2) stated about post mortem examination of the deceased.
Ramjan (PW-3) stated broadly according to the prosecution version that the
petitioner by driving the canter rashly and negligently caused accident
resulting in death of Nasroo.
The petitioner, in his statement under Section 313 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure ( in short – Cr.P.C.), denied the prosecution version
and claimed to be innocent. In defence, the petitioner examined Baljit
Singh (DW-1), who was cleaner of the canter at the relevant time. He stated
that Nasroo etc. over loaded the canter with stones and did not desist from
doing so on being asked. He also stated that on the way near Palwal, it was
drizzling and the petitioner halted the canter so that it could not over turn
while being driven, but Nasroo etc. asked the driver to move on.
Crl. Revision No.1387 of 2002 3
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
case file with their assistance.
Ramjan (PW-3) has stated according to the prosecution version
that the petitioner was driving the canter rashly and negligently and
consequently, the canter overturned. There is also statement of Nasroo
(deceased) made to police and the same can be used as dying declaration.
Moreover, Baljit Singh, cleaner of the canter, has also admitted that the
petitioner was driving the canter and it over turned resulting in death of
Nasroo. The very fact that the canter overturned would lead to presumption
of rash and negligent driving of the canter by the petitioner. Said
presumption has not been rebutted in any manner. There is also statement
of Ramjan (PW-3) to prove that the petitioner was driving the canter rashly
and negligently. There is also statement of Nasroo made to the police to the
same effect. Moreover, even if the version of the petitioner is accepted, it
would also point towards the negligence of the petitioner himself. If
Nasroo etc. overloaded the canter, the petitioner should not have driven the
same. Similarly, if the petitioner apprehended that the canter would
overturn on account of drizzling, he should not have driven the canter even
if he was asked to do so by Nasroo etc. Moreover, the statement of Baljit
Singh (DW-1), who is colleague of the petitioner, cannot be accepted in the
face of testimony of Ramjan (PW-3), who had no reason to depose falsely
against the petitioner. There is concurrent finding of guilt of the petitioner
by both the Courts below. The said finding has been recorded after
appreciating the evidence on record. The said finding is neither perverse
nor illegal so as to warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
Crl. Revision No.1387 of 2002 4
Even learned counsel for the petitioner could not advance any meaningful
argument to assail the finding of conviction except raising the pleas of
overloading of the canter and drizzling on the way, but the said pleas are
not acceptable, as discussed hereinbefore. Accordingly, the finding of
conviction of the petitioner is affirmed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that
the accident occurred in July 1997 i.e. almost twelve years ago and,
therefore, sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner should be
reduced.
The prayer has been emphatically opposed by the learned State
counsel.
I have carefully considered the matter.
Sentence of imprisonment for one year awarded to the
petitioner by the trial Magistrate has already been reduced to imprisonment
for nine months by the Appellate Court. The said sentence does not warrant
further reduction. Rash and negligent driving of the canter by the petitioner
resulted in the death of Nasroo. Sentence of imprisonment for nine months
for the aforesaid offence cannot be said to be excessive. Accordingly,
finding no merit in the instant revision petition, the same is dismissed.
The petitioner, who is on bail, shall surrender to his bail bonds
or shall be arrested to undergo the remaining part of his sentence.
( L.N. MITTAL )
JUDGE
March 10, 2009
sv