Crl. Revn. No. 766 of 2002 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Case No. : Crl. Revn. No. 766 of 2002
Date of Decision : April 23, 2009
Bahadur Singh .... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab .... Respondent
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
* * *
Present : Ms. Monika Jalota, Advocate
for the petitioner – as Amicus Curiae.
Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab
for the respondent – State.
* * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :
This is revision petition by Bahadur Singh, who was convicted
and sentenced by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Muktsar vide
judgment and order dated 31.05.1999, as affirmed in appeal by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Muktsar vide judgment dated 09.04.2002. The
petitioner stands convicted under Sections 279, 337, 338, 427 and 304-A of
the Indian Penal Code (in short – the IPC) and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for four months under Section 279 IPC, for five
months under Section 337 IPC, for seven months under Section 338 IPC
and also for seven months under Section 427 IPC. He has also been
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of
Crl. Revn. No. 766 of 2002 2
Rs.500/- and in default thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment
for two months under Section 304-A IPC. All the substantive sentences
have been ordered to run concurrently.
According to the prosecution version, on 15.06.1996, Major
Singh (since deceased) was going on his scooter, whereas his brother Mehar
Singh (complainant) and son Simranjit Singh were following him on other
scooter. At about 05:30 P.M., they reached near bus stand of Village
Bhullar. Offending tractor No. PIB 1120 being driven rashly and
negligently by the petitioner came from the opposite direction and hit the
scooter of Major Singh, who resultantly fell down and suffered injuries.
The tractor stopped at some distance. Mehar Singh and Simranjit Singh
inquired the name of the tractor driver, who disclosed his name as Bahadur
Singh (petitioner). They started attending to Major Singh and sent him in a
jeep to hospital and themselves chased the petitioner, who, in the meantime,
had fled away. However, they could not trace the petitioner. Major Singh
was admitted in the hospital by the jeep driver and Mehar Singh and
Simranjit Singh also reached there, but Major Singh succumbed to his
injuries. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
tractor by the petitioner. Mehar Singh lodged FIR by making statement to
the police. Necessary investigation followed and petitioner was sent for
trial after investigation.
Mehar Singh (PW-1) and Simranjit Singh (PW-2) have broadly
stated according to the prosecution version. Other evidence including
evidence of mechanical examination of the scooter and the tractor, medical
evidence and investigation of case has also been led. Photographer was also
examined. The tractor and the scooter were also seized from the spot by the
police.
The petitioner in his examination under Section 313 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (in short – the Cr.P.C.) denied all the
Crl. Revn. No. 766 of 2002 3
incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution
evidence and claimed to be innocent. He stated that he was sitting near the
bus stand for repair of tractor as its tyre had got burst. The petitioner did
not lead any evidence in his defence.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
case file.
Both the eye-witnesses have supported the prosecution version.
FIR was lodged very promptly. The accident occurred at 05:30 P.M. and
FIR was registered at 08:00 P.M. Manner of accident was described in the
FIR. Registration number of the offending tractor as well as name and
address of the petitioner as its driver were mentioned in the FIR. The
statements of both the eye-witnesses are thus fully corroborated by the FIR,
which was lodged very promptly. There is concurrent finding of guilt of the
petitioner by both the courts below on appreciation of evidence. The said
finding is neither perverse nor illegal so as to warrant interference in
exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that
Mehar Singh complainant in cross-examination could not identify the
petitioner being the driver of the offending tractor at the time of the
accident. However, merely on this ground, the conviction of the petitioner
cannot be set aside because Simranjit Singh correctly identified the
petitioner in the court being driver of the offending tractor at the time of
accident. Moreover, name and address of the petitioner as such was
mentioned in the FIR lodged promptly. There is no reason why Mehar
Singh and Simranjit Singh would falsely implicate the petitioner. The
petitioner has also not led any evidence in his defence. The petitioner has
admitted his presence at the spot along with tractor. False implication is
reasonably ruled out.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that brother
Crl. Revn. No. 766 of 2002 4
and son of the deceased did not accompany him to hospital. However, it has
been explained in the FIR itself that they chased the petitioner, who had, in
the meanwhile, fled away and they reached the hospital soon thereafter.
The FIR was lodged by Mehar Singh in the hospital itself without any delay.
Consequently, it cannot be said that Mehar Singh and Simranjit Singh had
not witnessed the occurrence.
In view of the foregoing discussion, I find no infirmity in the
concurrent finding of both the courts below regarding guilt of the petitioner.
Accordingly, finding of conviction of the petitioner is affirmed.
As regards sentence also, the petitioner does not deserve any
relief because the petitioner, by driving the tractor rashly and negligently,
prematurely put to an end the life of Major Singh aged about 42 years only.
Sentence of imprisonment for one year for offence under Section 304-A IPC
cannot be said to be excessive, notwithstanding that the occurrence took
place about 13 years ago. The petitioner has remained in custody for only
three months and eleven days, as per Custody Certificate placed on record
today by learned State counsel. The said period of custody is not adequate
punishment for offence under Section 304-A IPC. The quantum of sentence
imposed on the petitioner does not warrant reduction.
The appeal is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed.
The appellant, who is on bail, shall surrender to his bail bonds or shall be
taken in custody to undergo the remaining period of his sentence.
April 23, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE