ORDER
A.N. Jindal, J.
1. Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 1-8-1992 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the judgment dated 28-2-1992 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana convicting the accused under Sections 279, 304A and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months Under Section 279, IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months Under Section 304A, IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months Under Section 338, IPC. However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. Briefly stated the facts as emanating from the prosecution version are that on 21-9-1988, the petitioner while driving the truck No. PBU-7671 carrying 60-65 persons from different villages, like Dalla, Bhanipura, Sidhwa Bet and Jagraon, was going to Jalandhar. Complainant Hakam Singh was going ahead of them. When the truck reached near the junction of kucha rasta abutting the Jagraon-Ludhiana high-way, in the area of Baddowal, then, a cyclist came in front of the truck. The petitioner, who was driving the truck at a high speed, applied the brakes in order to save the cyclist, but by sudden brakes, the truck turned turtle. Resultantly, the petitioner, the complainant Hakam Singh and also Mander Singh and Karamdeep Singh, who were sitting in the driver’s cabin and other persons, sitting on the body of truck and its ‘dala’, sustained injuries. All injured were shifted to the hospital at Ludhiana. Three persons, namely; Zora Ram, Parsan Singh and Hukam Singh succumbed to their injuries at the spot, while, Darshan Singh, Nek Singh, Harbans Singh, Tara Singh, Lachhman Singh and Jammu Singh succumbed to their injuries in the Hospital.
3. On receipt of the information regarding the accident, Sub-Inspector Amar Singh of Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana reached CMC Hospital, Ludhiana at 12.05 a.m. On 21-9-1988 and met the complainant (Hakam Singh) and recorded his statement, on the basis of which FIR Ex. PA/2 was registered at the Police Station. He also recorded the statements of the witnesses, prepared the rough site plan of the place of occurrence, formally arrested the accused and on completion of the investigation, challan against the accused was presented in the Court. Ultimately, the trial ended in conviction. The appeal was also dismissed.
4. I have heard Shri H.S. Dhandi, learned Counsel representing the petitioner and Shri A.S. Brar, Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondent State of Punjab and have perused the records of the case.
5. Dr. Phillip Alexander (P.W. 22) of CMC, Ludhiana examined Gurnam Singh, Lachhman Singh, Joginder Singh, Tari and Chand Singh on 21-9-1988 and certified that they were unfit to make the statements. Medical legal reports of Chand Singh (Ex. P.W. 22/F) and Joginder Singh (Ex. P.W. 22/ G) have been proved. Dr. Rajesh Paul ((P.W. 24) is the Registrar of CMC Hospital, Ludhiana. He medico legally examined Surjit Singh and proved his medico legal report Ex. P.W. 24/A. He also proved the medico legal reports of other injured as Ex. P.W./ 24/B to Ex. P.W. 24/F, which were in the hands of his colleagues viz. Dr. Sanjeev Thakural and Dr. Harpreet Grewal. He also identified the signatures of Dr. Inder Mohan Singh Puri on the report Ex. P.W. 24/G. His evidence has not been challenged during cross-examination. Dr. Suresh Kumar (P.W. 30), who conducted the post-mortem examination on the body of Zora Ram Safai Sewak on 21-9-1988; proved his report as Ex. P.W. 26/A and pictorial, diagram showing the location of the injuries as Ex. P.W. 26/A-1. He also proved the post-mortem report of Hukam Singh son of Sher Singh as Ex. P.W. 26/B and that of Harbans Singh son of Gurdev Singh as Ex. P.W. 26/C.
6. Dr. Prabhjit Singh (P.W. 31) has proved the post-mortem reports of Parsan Singh son of Sant Singh (Ex. P.W. 27/A), Tara Singh son of Bikkar Singh (Ex. P.W. 27/B) and of Lachhman Singh son of Kunda Singh (Ex. P.W. 27/C). The doctors declared the injuries of the deceased persons as a result of motor vehicle accident. The medical evidence finds support from the ocular version given by the complainant (Hakam Singh P.W. 1), who stated that the accused by loading 60-65 persons of different places of Jagraon Tehsil, was going in truck No. PBU-7671 on the fateful day i.e. 21-9-1988. When the petitioner reached near village Baddowal, it turned turtle due to the sudden jerk. Resultantly, three persons died at the spot and 5-6 other persons died in the hospital. The accident took place as a result of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. Shri Bikkar Singh (P.W. 2), Kala Singh (P.W. 3), Sukhdev Singh (P.W. 4), Jagroop Singh (P.W. 6), Karanvtr Singh (P.W. 8), Kartar Singh (P.W. 16), Nachhatar Singh (P.W. 17), Mohinder Singh (P.W. 18). Chand Singh (P.W. 19) and Surjit Singh (P.W. 28) have also toed the lines of the complainant. If the scenario as depicted by the prosecution, while leading the evidence, is delineated, then it comes out that it was all due to the bare negligence of the petitioner that so many lives were lost and many others were injured. He had no business to load the truck with 60-65 persons.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that since, the petitioner was taking all the persons, including the deceased and injured to a political rally under the directions of the political people, therefore, he could not refuse them and as such, he was not at all fault. The criminology does not recognise the illegal directions issued by any politician or a bureaucrat, which results in mass incarceration. The petitioner was not an employee of the persons, who issued direction to over-load the passengers in a truck meant for carrying only goods. Even illegal direction is not required to be obeyed by a subordinate. Again, the petitioner was negligent in driving the truck at such a high speed as to put the lives of the passengers at peril. Similarly, overloading of 60-65 people in the truck like a fodder, also attribute to the negligence of the petitioner. Therefore, conclusion in all human probabilities would be that the petitioner was rash and negligent in taking such a big number of passengers on the truck, drove it so rashly that it turned turtle and took the lives of nine persons and rendered many people injured.
8. Coming to the quantum of sentence, it is a matter of common experience that in a day and a day out, these truck drivers in utter disregard to the traffic rules and instructions without bothering the value of the precious lives drive ruthlessly and carelessly rendering thousands of people as dead and lacs of people as injured and disabled, therefore, taking a lenient view in the present case would amount to encouraging such people, to have a free hand to drive carelessly, rashly and negligently in future.
9. To my mind, the sentence already awarded against the petitioner is already on the lower side. As such, no justification could be seen for reduction in the sentence.
10. Consequently, finding no merit in the revision petition, the same is dismissed.