IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1866 of 2003 Date of decision: February 23, 2010 Rupinder Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Baldev Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C.S. Brar, DAG, Punjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J This is petitioner's revision against the judgment dated 28.8.2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ropar, dismissing his appeal against the judgment dated 20.10.2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ropar, convicting and sentencing him as under :- U/s 279 IPC : Rigorous imprisonment for six months. U/s 337 IPC : Rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.200/- U/s 304-A IPC : Rigorous imprisonment for one year and six months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-. Factual matrix of the case is that on 18.10.1997, complainant Mohan Singh (herein referred as 'the complainant') along with Major Singh was going from village Nathmalpur towards village Bhago Majra on his scooter bearing registration No.CH01R-6794. Ram Saran Singh along with his wife Bhupinder Kaur and daughter Prabhjot Kaur were going a little ahead of him on a scooter bearing registration No.PB12B-5824 in the direction from Morinda towards Ropar. At about 6.00 p.m. on the Singhpura road near bus stand Kurali, a truck bearing registration No.PUM- 4803 belonging to Punjab State Tube Well Corporation and trailer carrying boring machine annexed on its rear side, driven by the accused rashly and negligently crossed his scooter. He while driving the truck as such and without blowing horn struck in the scooter of Ram Saran Singh hitting him Criminal Revision No.1866 of 2003 -2- from its rear side, where upon Ram Saran Singh fell down along with his wife Bhupinder Kaur. Bhupinder Kaur had fallen towards the truck-cum- trailer side and her head was crushed. The accused came to the complainant and begged pardon and when he was in the process of taking care of Ram Saran Singh the accused slipped away. On the statement of the complainant recorded by ASI Harsimran Singh at bus stand Kurali, FIR Ex.PA/2 was recorded. ASI Harsimran Singh proceeded to the place of occurrence, visited the spot, took the scooter bearing registration No.PB12B-5824 into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PB attested by the complainant and Constable Baljinder Singh, took into possession truck bearing registration No.PUN4803 into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PC, documents of the scooter were also taken into possession vide memo Ex.PD. The Investigating Officer prepared the inquest report Ex.PF of Bhupinder Kaur and sent the dead body for postmortem examination. He also got the spot photographed. The accused was arrested on the same day. Completion of the investigation was followed by a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The accused was charged under Sections 279/337/304-A IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Karam Chand Mechanic (PW1), Mohan Singh complainant (PW2), Ram Saran Singh (PW3), Dr. Paramjit Singh (PW4), Pal Singh (PW5), Ajmer Singh (PW6), ASI Harsimran Singh (PW7), Dr. Ajay Kumar Jindia (PW8) and Ajay Deep Singh (PW9). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in the case. According to him, the accident had occurred due to the negligence of Ram Saran Singh. During defence, he examined Avtar Singh (DW1) and Baldev Singh (DW2). The trial ended in conviction. His appeal was also dismissed. Arguments heard. Record perused. The star witness in this case is Mohan Singh (PW2) and Ram Saran Singh (PW3). Both of them have categorically and consistently described the circumstances and the manner in which the accident had taken place. Ram Saran Singh (PW3) has testified that on the date of accident, he along with his daughter and wife Bhupinder Kaur was going from Morinda Criminal Revision No.1866 of 2003 -3- to Kurali on his scooter bearing registration No.PB12B-5844. At about 6.00 p.m. the accused, while driving the truck rashly and negligently, came and struck the scooter from behind, as a result of which his wife fell down towards the road side, ran over by the truck driven by the accused and died at the spot. His testimony stands corroborated by Mohan Singh (PW2) in all the material particulars. Both having withstood the test of credibility, reliability and trustworthiness, deserve to be believed. The eye witness account fits in with the medical evidence. Dr. Paramjit Singh (PW4) who medico-legally examined Ram Saran Singh on 18.10.1997 proved the medico-legal report Ex.PW4/A and deposed about the injuries suffered by him during the accident. The FIR in this case is prompt one. The witnesses had no animus or enmity against the accused for implicating him falsely in the case. It has come in evidence that the accused after stopping the truck had come to the complainant and begged pardon, therefore, the witnesses had ample occasion and opportunity to identify him. It was only when the witness Mohan Singh (PW2) went busy in taking care of Ram Saran Singh and his daughter and some people had collected, the accused fled away, therefore, the question of mistaken identity does not arise. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to build up the case on the ground that the vehicle involved in the case was truck cum Trailer belonging to Punjab State Tube Well Corporation and that it could not be driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. The maximum speed at which the said truck could be driven, while carrying boring machine, could be 20-25 kms per hour. In order to prove the speed and carefulness of the accused, the later has examined Avtar Singh (DW1) Mechanic in Punjab State Tube Well Corporation who testified that the truck cum trailer could be driven at a maximum speed of 20-25 kms per hour and it could not be driven in a zig zag manner. The witness appears to have predicted like a pandit and he was not present at the time when the accused was driving the vehicle. Rashness and negligence could be assessed and the speed/movement of the vehicle could be witnessed by the persons who had witnessed the occurrence. In this regard, it may be observed that both the witnesses have consistently stated that the accused was completely rash and negligent and he struck the scooter from backside. Any way, it is not the accident which took place when the Criminal Revision No.1866 of 2003 -4- accused was coming from the front side. Had it been so, then some misjudgment on the part of the accused could be speculated, but, when the scooter driven by Ram Saran Singh was going on the road ahead of the truck trailer, then the accused should have been efficient and competent in his judgment to drive the vehicle while taking care of the small vehicles going by the side of the road. The speed is not the only sole criteria for determining the rashness and negligence of the driver, rather he was under obligation to have a reasonable care and control over the vehicle and should have been in a position to stop it as and when required and to drive it carefully while passing through the crowded area and taking care of the vehicles going along the road side. The photographs Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 show that the trailer carrying boring machine had a wider body then the main truck itself, therefore, the accused was required more road clearance then the truck itself. In the instant case, it appears that the accused did not bother to find out as to how much road he required for clearance of the truck cum trailer and struck the same from the backside of the scooter. The other argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Karam Chand Mechanic (PW1) did not state if any part of the truck cum trailer was damaged or affected, therefore, no accident could be said to have taken place with the truck trailer. As a matter of fact, it is not a case where the accused denied the accident, however, he has stated that the accident took place on account of the fault on the part of Ram Saran Singh. In any case, the truck cum trailer was a heavy vehicle and if any part of it strikes with the small vehicle like scooter that too from the back side, then the scooter roles down on the road due to the impact of the heavy vehicle, and no chance of heavy vehicle being damaged could be ruled out. Had the scooter been caught in between the truck and the trailer or come under it, then some part of the truck or trailer was likely to be damaged. But, the photographs Ex.P1 to P7 placed on record show that the scooter having hit by the truck cum trailer rolled by the side of the road while Bhupinder Kaur fell down and came under the rear tyre of the trailer and died. As such, the evidence of Karam Chand Mechanic (PW1) could hardly be treated as a good piece of evidence for giving benefit of doubt to the accused. Criminal Revision No.1866 of 2003 -5- As regards the quantum of sentence, it has been often seen that the day in and day out, number of road side accidents are alarmingly on the rise. Thousands of people come under the spate of rash driving of the vehicles by the untrained, unqualified and illiterate drivers. Some times no trace of the offender is found and the crime goes unattended and unpunished. Sometimes the people after fleeing from the scene of crime come with variety of defences including identification. These are the rare cases where witnesses dare to say and identify the drivers causing killings and devastation. On account of accidents thousands of families loose their bread, become crippled and live at the mercy of others. As such, these unscrupulous elements indulging in the rash driving need to be strictly criticized and condemned. To deal with such people with leniency is likely to send wrong signals to the society and amounts to travesty of justice. Valuable lives are turned into corpus in the twinkling of an eye for the fault on the part of the negligent persons sitting on the wheels. As such I do not deem it a fit case where some leniency could be extended to him. For the foregoing reasons, finding no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed. Copy of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar for compliance. February 23, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge