Crl. Rev. No. 510 of 1998 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Rev. No.510 of 1998
Decided on : 19-08-2009
Krishan Kumar
....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab
....Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present:- Mr. S.S.Siao, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. B.B.S.Teji, AAG, Punjab.
MAHESH GROVER, J
This revision petition is directed against the judgments of
Additional Sessions Judge dated 12.5.1998 and that of the learned Trial
Court dated 4.2.1998.
The petitioner was convicted under the provisions of Section
304 A IPC and was sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine
of Rs.1000/- and in default to further undergo RI for two months.
Facts
of the case are that deceased while going on a bicycle was
hit by the bus driven by the petitioner as a result of which the complainant
fell down on the kuchha side of the road while deceased who was alongwith
him died. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
judgments of both the Courts below are erroneous and are liable to be set
aside. He has stated that no accident was caused with his bus and identity
of the bus was not established. He also contended that the presence of the
complainant at the spot was also doubtful. Reference was made to the
Crl. Rev. No. 510 of 1998 2
report of the mechanic to say that the bus even if assumed to have been
involved in the accident was mechanically defective as it was tilting towards
one side. Therefore, driver-petitioner was not at fault.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has
contended that the accident is proved beyond any shadow of doubt. The
petitioner has merely pleaded innocence but not shown as to how
prosecution allegations were false. He further contended that photographs
which are on record as Ex.P-4 to P-6 show that the bus had stopped at short
distance from the spot of the accident which is also the case of the defence.
It was next contended that in view of the overwhelming evidence petitioner
cannot escape conviction and sentence. Further the bus belongs to Pepsu
Road Transport Corporation which was a public sector undertaking and it
was relatively easy for the petitioner to prove his innocence by showing that
the bus was not plying on the said route or that he was not the driver of the
bus at the time of accident. He further contended that in view of the
overwhelming evidence on record, the present petition deserves to be
dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused
the impugned judgments and record.
The photographs which are on record as Ex.P-4 to P-6 show
that the bus is standing at the spot of the accident. It is also the case of the
prosecution that bus stopped at about 40-50 yards from the site of the
accident and the driver remained at the spot. The deceased was taken to the
hospital. In this view of the matter, there is hardly any ambiguity in the
evidence recorded by the Courts below that the bus was involved and the
petitioner was driving the said bus at the time of the accident. The plea of
Crl. Rev. No. 510 of 1998 3
innocence which has been raised by the petitioner does not merit
acceptance for the simple reason that the bus belongs to a public sector
undertaking and it could have been proved by producing adequate evidence
on record that the said bus was not involved in the accident and even if bus
was involved, petitioner was not driver of the bus at the time of the
accident. But no such evidence was led by the petitioner. In view of the
fact that there is cogent evidence to prove the complicity of the petitioner in
accident inviting conviction under Section 304A IPC, I am of the
considered opinion that the present revision petition is totally devoid of any
merit by looking at it from any angle. The report of the mechanic relied
upon by the petitioner also does not show that the bus was defective and
that accident was not caused by the said bus. It is the case of the
prosecution that deceased alongwith complainant was going on bicycle and
bus has merely brushed on his elbow and he fell down and it resulted in his
death. In such an eventuality when the bus has merely touched the elbow of
the deceased who was on bicycle and got destablised by the impact, it could
not be expected that the bus would be damaged. Therefore, the contention
is rejected.
No ground to interfere. Dismissed.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that
the petitioner is a first offender and has not been involved in any other case.
He further contends that considering the fact that accident took place in the
year 1991 when the petitioner was 40 years of age and 18 years have passed
since then, no fruitful purpose will be served by sending him to jail at this
stage of life when he is just about to retire and is much advanced in age.
Court has considered this aspect of the matter and having
Crl. Rev. No. 510 of 1998 4
regard to the aforesaid facts, I deem it appropriate to direct that the sentence
of the petitioner is reduced to the extent of what he has already undergone
and alternate sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.50,000/- considering the
facts that he was 40 years of age at the time of accident and by now he has
advanced in age and also considering the fact that he has faced the ordeal of
criminal trial for last 18 years.
Amount of Rs.50,000/- shall be paid to the family of the
deceased. The said amount be deposited before the Trial Court within a
period of two months from today and the same shall be disbursed to the
L.Rs of the deceased after due verification.
However, it is made clear that in case the needful is not done
within the stipulated period then the conviction and sentence awarded by
the Courts below shall automatically stand revived.
Disposed of.
August 19, 2009 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge