Criminal Revision No.612 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.612 of 2002 Date of decision 21.03.2009 Chaman Mohd. .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab .....Respondent Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. N. JINDAL. Present: Mr. I.P.S. Kohli, Advocate, Amicus Curiae, for the petitioner. Ms. Simsi Dhir, AAG, Punjab. A. N. JINDAL, J On account of the death of Bhag Singh due to rash and negligent driving by the petitioner. The prosecution under Section 304A IPC was launched against him, as a sequel of which he was slapped with conviction vide judgment dated 28.11.1997 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ludhiana and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and also directed to pay a fine Rs.2000/- . The appeal preferred by him was also dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide his judgment dated 15.03.2002. In nutshell, the case of the prosecution is that the complainant Darshan Singh (herein referred as “ the complainant”) along with one Jaswant Singh was going from village Chomo to Malout on Scooter and when he reached near the house of Mukhtiar singh Kheri, he noticed Bhag Singh (deceased) resident of village Maloud going ahead of him on bi-cycle. In the meantime, the Criminal Revision No.612 of 2002 -2- accused while driving the bus No.PJG-7623, rashly and negligently, came from the back side and struck the same against Bhag Singh. After striking his bi-cycle, the bus dragged Bhag Singh from left side to the fields situated on the right side of the road. The cycle of Bhag Singh was also damaged. In the meantime, Thakur Singh came there and witnessed the occurence. On the statement of Darshan Singh the case was registered and investigated. Ultimately challan was presented against him. He was charged under Section 304-A IPC to which he denied and opted to contest. The prosecution in order to prove the charge against the accused examined Ravi, Photographer as PW-1, Darshan Singh as PW-2, Jaswant Singh as PW-3, Dr. G. S. Randhawa as PW-4, Julfi Ram, Mechanic as PW-5, Kartar Singh PW-6 and Constable Sukhdev Singh PW-7. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the petitioner denied all the allegations and pleaded his false implication in the case. In his defence examined Gurmit Singh as DW-1. The trial Court convicted the accused. The appeal preferred by the petitioner also failed. Heard. In this case, the petitioner initially tried to urge that he was not driving the offending bus at the time of accident but during evidence, he contended that he was not driving the bus negligently and the accident took place due to the carelessness of Bhag Singh. In other words, he has impliedly admitted his presence being driver of the bus at the time of incident. Gurmit Singh DW-1 supporting the Criminal Revision No.612 of 2002 -3- presence of the petitioner has also admitted regarding the petitioner being driver at the time of accident. He has categorically stated that he was the passenger in the bus and the bus was at normal speed whereas Bhag Singh, while crossing the road, he suddenly came in front of the bus and died. The story set up by the Gurmit Singh has never been disclosed by the petitioner immediately after his prosecution, till he was introduced as a defence witness. Thus this version certainly could be said to be an after thought. There is a finding of facts returned by both the Courts below that it was the petitioner who while driving the bus rashly and negligently struck against the bi-cycle of Bhag Singh crushing him at the spot and damaging his bi-cycle. The sequence of accident as revealed from evidence on record and also on the perusal of the file convinces the conscience of the Court that the offending bus firstly collided with bi-cycle of the deceased who was going on the left side of the road and thereafter it dragged the deceased and his bi-cycle to the extreme right side of the road and even then, the petitioner could not control the bus therefore it went into the fields. The photographs taken at the spot produced on the record also support the aforesaid facts. The appellate Court judgment vividly depicts the scenario of the case and the same being based on correct appreciation of evidence does not required any interference at my end. The other arguments put forth is that Thakur Singh was not examined whereas Darshan Singh, is an interested witness. While differing with the aforesaid argument, it is observed that the presence of the witness Darshan Singh is quite natural and probably at the spot and it is the quality of the evidence and not the quantity which is weighed. Criminal Revision No.612 of 2002 -4- Nevertheless, the witness is related to the deceased but he having withstood the test while putting on the anvil of reliability, credibility and trustworthiness can't be discarded merely on the ground of his relationship as such. As regards the argument with regard to identity of the petitioner it was a day time occurrence, the witnesses duly identified the petitioner at the spot and that he has not disputed the occurrence and that he was driving the vehcile, therefore, the question of mistaken identity does not arise. Both PW-2 Darshan Singh and PW-3 Jaswant Singh are consistent in their statements with regard to the time, place and the manner in which the occurrence took place. No prejudice or enmity has been alleged and proved against them for substituting the petitioner in place of real culprit. As regards the extending of benefit of probation to the petitioner, I am not inclined to accede to this request. The driver carrying heavy vehicles hardly bother the pedestrians as cyclist move along side the road. They have poor knowledge of the traffic rules as also that of driving, take the life of the people for a fide and roast them within the twinkling of an eye. The apex Court also discouraged the awarding of probation to the person involved in the accident. It was observed in the case of B. Nagabhushanam versus State of Karnataka, 2008 Volume (3) RCR Criminal Page 50 as under:- 12. “We may, in this connection, notice that in Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana, 2000(2) RCR (Criminal) 816: (2002)5 SCC82, this Court opined. “ Bearing in mind the galloping trend in road accidents in India and the devastating consequences visiting the victims and their families, Criminal Revision No.612 of 2002 -5- 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 or negligent driving of automobiles, one of the prime considerations should be deterrence. A profesional driver pedals the accelerator of the automobile almost throughout his working hours. He must constantly inform himself that he cannot afford 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 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 automobile.” “In Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab (1979) 4 SCC 719, this Court held. “Nevertheless, sentencing must have a policy of correction. This driver, if he has to become a good driver, must have a better training in traffic laws and moral responsibility, with special reference to the potential injury to human life and limb. Punishment in this area must, therefore, be Criminal Revision No.612 of 2002 -6- accompanied by these components. The State, we hope, will attach a course for better driving together with a livelier sense of responsibility, when the punishment is for driving offences. May be, the State may consider, in cases of men with poor families, occasional parole and reformatory courses on appropriate application, without the rigour of the old rules which are subject to Government discretion.” Since the petitioner while driving the bus without caring the other people moving on the road struck his bus and crushed the Bhag Singh without wasting any time therefore, he does not deserve any concession under the probation of Offenders Act. Consequently finding no merits in the petition, the same is dismissed. ( A. N. JINDAL ) JUDGE 21.03.2009 A.Kaundal