In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No.1892 of 2002 Date of decision: November 26, 2008 Dalip Singh ... Petitioner versus State of Hayana ... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Rajeev Godara, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.C. Gupta, AAG, Haryana for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J This petition has arisen out of the judgment dated 2.9.2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner-accused Dalip Singh (herein referred as 'the petitioner') against the judgment dated 26.11.2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sirsa convicting and sentencing the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- under Section 279 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 18 months and fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 304-A IPC. However, the Appellate Court reduced the sentence of imprisonment to one year under Section 304-A IPC. Resume of facts, relevant for disposal of the petition and emanating from the record is that on 8.6.1994 at about 7.30 p.m. Constable Tek Ram (PW1) complainant (herein referred to as 'the complainant') and HC Rulia Ram (PW5) were posted on duty at police barrier Rania Road, Sirsa. In the meantime, the petitioner came while driving the tractor bearing registration No.HR-24A-1156 rashly and and negligently from the side of city Sirsa, who was signalled to stop. The petitioner instead of stopping the tractor drove the same at a very high speed. In the meantime, Balwinder Singh deceased, came on scooter bearing registration No.HNN-1225 from the opposite side. The petitioner lost control of the tractor and rammed the Crl. Revision No.1892 of 2002 -2- *** same into the deceased causing him injuries. The complainant Tek Ram took Balwinder Singh to Civil Hospital, Sirsa in an injured condition. Subsequently, he succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. In response to the ruqa sent by the doctor, SI Zile Singh (PW6) went to the Civil Hospital and recorded statement of the complainant, on the basis of which FIR Ex.PW2/A was registered. The case was investigated and challan was presented against the petitioner. Consequently, he was charged under Sections 279/304-A IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Constable Tek Ram complainant (PW1) and Head Constable Rulia Ram (PW5); both being eye witnesses to the occurrence. Inspector Chhotu Ram (PW2) and Vinod Sethi (PW3) are formal witnesses. Constable Gulab Singh (PW4) had mechanically examined the offending tractor bearing registration No.HR-24-A-1156 and scooter bearing registration No.HNN- 1225 who submitted his reports Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B respectively. SI Zile Singh (PW6) proved ruqa Ex.PW6/A, FIR Ex.PW2/A, site plan Ex.PW6/C and recovery memos Ex.PW6/D and Ex.PW5/B vide which registration certificate of the tractor as well as the driving licence of the petitioner were taken into possession from the tractor at the spot. Besides, he proved the recovery memo with regard to recovery of the scooter and the tractor. Dr. Narender Chaudhary (PW7) conducted autopsy upon the body of the deceased. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the petitioner denied all the allegations and pleaded his false implication. The trial ended in conviction and the appeal filed by him was also dismissed with certain modification in the quantum of sentence. Arguments heard. Record perused. The prime contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since Tek Ram (PW1) and Rulia Ram (PW5) did not know the petitioner earlier, therefore, it is a case of doubtful identity and the prosecution did not arrange for any test identification parade, but this argument does not weigh with the mind of this court. On examination of various judgments as cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner before Crl. Revision No.1892 of 2002 -3- *** the Appellate Court as well as before me, the crux of the law is that if the petitioner was not known to the witnesses earlier; they identified them for the first time in the Court, the occurrence took place at night time and the witnesses had no opportunity to have glimpse of the accused, then such identification for the first time in the court is of no value. This proposition certainly cannot be disputed, but here in this case, the witnesses being present at the barrier were on the vigil of the vehicles passing thereby and had the occasion to see the petitioner; Tek Ram (PW1) states that the petitioner was signalled to stop but he drove the tractor so rashly and negligently that he instead of stopping, passed the barrier and struck against the scooterist. This witness having opportunity to see, rightly identified him being the driver of the tractor. Further more, a bare perusal of the initial statement of Tek Ram (PW1) Ex.PW1/A which became the basis of the FIR Ex.PW2/A, reflects not only the name of the petitioner but his father's name also. His statement finds corroboration from the testimony of Rulia Ram (PW5). The matter does not rest here. The Investigating Officer visited the spot and took into possession registration certificate of the tractor and driving licence in the name of the petitioner and also the registration certificate of the scooter bearing No.HNN-1225 of the deceased, vide recovery memo Ex.PW-5/A and Ex.PW-5/B respectively. Thus, recovery of the tractor, the registration certificate pertaining to the tractor and also the driving licence from the spot are sufficient to connect the petitioner with the crime. The petitioner has failed to explain as to how these documents so as tractor happened to be at the place of accident. Both the eye witnesses namely Tek Ram (PW1) and Rulia Ram (PW5) have given consistent version of the accident and their ocular version find corroboration from the medical evidence. Thus, no iota of doubt is left in my mind to up-hold the findings of fact returned by both the courts below that it was the petitioner who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident and the scooterist came in his spate. Faced with the situation, as a last resort, learned counsel for the petitioner has harped for some leniency on the quantum of sentence while urging that the petitioner deserves to be extended benefit of probation. Crl. Revision No.1892 of 2002 -4- *** While delving deep into the issue, the arguments are found to be having no substance because tendency and frequency of the driving of the vehicles rashly and negligently resulting into deaths of persons driving small vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists have been tremendously increasing day by day on the Indian roads. The illiterate and untrained tractor drivers knowing no traffic rules take the same on the roads without bothering and caring the passersby. The lack of elementary skills, knowledge and etiquette of decent driving have led to an enormous increase in the number of accidents and journey by road with mangled vehicles and bodies strewn around is a common experience. In such a grave situation, to grant benefit of probation would amount to ignoring serious faults committed by the careless persons sitting on the wheels and may send wrong signals to the society at large. As such I do not deem it a fit case where benefit of probation could be extended to him. The Apex Court in case Dalbir Singh vs. State of Haryana 2000 (2) RCR (Criminal) 816 also discouraged extending such benefit while observing as under :- “13. Bearing in mind the galloping trend in road accidents in India and the devastating consequences visiting the victims and their families, criminal courts cannot treat the nature of the offence under Section 304-A IPC as attracting the benevolent provisions of Section 4 of the PO Act. While considering the quantum of sentence, to be imposed for the offence of causing death by rash and negligent driving of automobiles, one of the prime considerations should be deterrence. A professional driver pedals the accelerator of the automobile almost throughout his working hours. He must constantly inform himself that he cannot be afforded to have a single moment of laxity or inattentiveness when his leg is on the pedal of a vehicle in locomotion. He cannot and should not take a chance thinking that a rash driving need not necessarily cause any accident; or even if any accident occurs it need not necessarily result in the death of any human being; or even if such death Crl. Revision No.1892 of 2002 -5- *** ensues he might not be convicted of the offence; and lastly that even if he is convicted he would be dealt with leniently by the court. He must always keep in his mind the fear psyche that if he is convicted of the offence for causing death of a human being due to his callous driving of vehicle he cannot escape from jail sentence. This is the role which the courts can play, particularly at the level of trial courts, for lessening the high rate of motor accidents due to callous driving of automobiles.” Similar observations have been made by the Apex Court in case B.Nagabhushanam vs. State of Karnataka, 2008 (3) RCR (Criminal) 50, while relying upon Dalbir Singh's case (supra). In view of the above, the request forwarded by the learned counsel for the petitioner for extending benefit of probation is turned down. Resultantly, the instant petition stands dismissed. The impugned judgment is maintained. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa is directed to take steps to procure the custody of the petitioner for serving remaining part of his sentence. November 26, 2008 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge