IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.268 of 2002 Date of Decision: 11.02.2009 Karam Singh Petitioner Versus State of Punjab Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH Present: Mr.K.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner Ms.Manjari Nehru Kaul, DAG Punjab for the respondent-State …. Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) Vide judgment and order dated 25.1.2000, the petitioner was convicted for commission of an offence under Section 279 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.250/- with a default clause. He was also convicted for commission of an offence under Section 304-A IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- with a default clause. He went in appeal, which was dismissed on 19.1.2002. Hence, this revision petition. It was allegation against the petitioner that by driving truck bearing No.HR-09-3169, in rash and negligent manner, on 7.9.1996, he has Criminal Revision No.268 of 2002 2 caused death of Sh.Harbans Singh. Case of the prosecution as noticed by the trial Court in paragraph No.2 of its judgment reads thus:- “In brief the present case is that on 7.9.1996 SI Paramjit Singh along with other police officials was present near T point Sirhind Bye Pass Road in connection with the patrolling duty. There Gian Singh, owner of a Dhaba, informed them that an accident has occurred in front of his Dhaba involving a scooter and the truck. The scooter driver has been taken to the hospital in a private vehicle. Thereafter SI Paramjit Singh along with other police officials went to the hospital where they came to know about the death of the scooter driver, Harbans Singh. He met with Dhanjit Singh near the dead house. Dhanjit Singh made a statement to him to the effect that he deals in plastic toys. He alongwith his father, Harbans Singh, was going on their scooter from Ambala to Patiala. Number of their scooter was HR 01 D-4055. At about 7 p.m. when they were near Sirhind Bye Pass on Rajpura Patiala road, then a truck No.HR 09-3169 came from Rajpura side at a very rash and negligent speed without blowing any horn and hit the scooter from behind. As a result he fell down on the left side of the road and his father fell down on the right side, who was sitting on the back seat. The rear tyre of the truck crushed him. Thereafter he was taken to the hospital in a private vehicle and he succumbed to his injuries on the way to the hospital, where he was declared dead. The accident has occurred due to rash and negligent Criminal Revision No.268 of 2002 3 driving of the accused. On the basis of this statement FIR No.279 dated 7.9.1996 was registered in the Police Station Sadar, Patiala. On completion of investigation, final report was put in Court for trial. The petitioner was charge sheeted to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution produced seven witnesses and also brought on record documentary evidence to prove its case. On conclusion of prosecution’s evidence, statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Incriminating material existing on record was put to him, which he denied, pleaded innocence and false implication. He also led evidence in defence. The trial Court on appraisal of evidence convicted and sentenced him vide judgment 25.1.2000 as found mentioned in earlier part of this order. He failed in appeal. At the time of arguments, Mr.K.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate, counsel for the petitioner has failed to show any misreading of evidence on record, which may necessitate any interference, at the instance of the petitioner, in orders under challenge. He by stating that conviction and sentence of the petitioner was not justified, tried to pin-point minor discrepancies here and there in the statements made by eye witnesses and the official witnesses. However, he has failed to convince the Court so far as merits of the case are concerned. Vivid description of the accident was given by Dhanjit Singh son of the deceased, who was driving the scooter and the deceased was sitting on the pillion seat. Lengthy cross-examination has failed to shatter testimony of the above said witness. Criminal Revision No.268 of 2002 4 Otherwise also, their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. State of H.P., 2008(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 611, has opined that scope to interfere in revision, in a judgment passed by the Courts below involving offences under Sections 304-A and 279 IPC, is very limited. Faced with the situation, Mr.Dhaliwal pleaded lenient treatment for the petitioner, which prayer has vehemently been opposed by the State counsel. After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court feels that purpose of criminal law justice is not only to punish an erring individual but also to give an opportunity to him to reform himself. It is apparent from the records that the petitioner is suffering agony of pending litigation since 1996. He was 40 years of age at the time when accident had taken place and the only bread winner of his family. Contention of counsel for the petitioner that if at this stage, he is sent behind the bars, not only he but his entire family will suffer, appears to be correct. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Karamjit Singh versus State(Delhi Admn.), 2001 (9) Supreme Court Cases 161, observed as under:- "Punishment in criminal cases is both punitive and reformative. The purpose is that the person found guilty of committing the offence is made to realise his fault and is deterred from repeating such acts in future. The reformative aspect is meant to enable the person concerned to relent and repent for his action and make himself acceptable to the society as a useful social being. In determining the question of proper punishment Criminal Revision No.268 of 2002 5 in a criminal case, the court has to weigh the degree of culpability of the accused, its effect on others and the desirability of showing any leniency in the matter of punishment in the case. An act of balancing is, what is needed in such case: a balance between the interest of the individual and the concern of the society; weighing the one against the other. Imposing a hard punishment on the accused serves a limited purpose but at the same time, it is to be kept in mind that relevance of deterrent punishment in matters of serious crimes affecting society should not be undermined. Within the parameters of the law an attempt has to be made to afford an opportunity to the individual to reform himself and lead the life of a normal, useful member of society and make his contribution in that regard. Denying such opportunity to a person who has been found to have committed offence in the facts and circumstances placed on record, would only have a hardening attitude towards his fellow beings and towards society at large. Such a situation, has to be avoided, again within the permissible limits of law." Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon two judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab, 1982 C.A.R. 280(SC) and Aitha Chander Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1982 C.A.R. 5 (SC), to contend that petitioner be released on probation. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has already undergone three months of actual sentence. He was the first offender. After accident, in dispute, he has not involved himself any Criminal Revision No.268 of 2002 6 other such like offence. His counsel assures this Court that in future the petitioner will drive the vehicle in a very careful and disciplined manner. Keeping in view facts and circumstances of this case and ratio of judgments mentioned above, conviction of the petitioner is upheld, however, sentence of imprisonment awarded to him is set aside and he is ordered to be released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, for a period of six months. Taking note of a fact that due to rash and negligent driving by the petitioner, one valuable human life has lost, punishment of fine awarded to the petitioner is enhanced to Rs.35,000/-. The petitioner is directed to deposit the above said amount within three months from today with the trial Court. On deposit so being made, the trial Court shall issue notice to the legal heirs of the deceased and disburse the above said amount to him/ them forthwith. It is made clear that in case enhanced amount is not deposited, as directed above, this revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. The petitioner shall also execute bail bonds and file an undertaking before the trial Court that he would act like a disciplined citizen and will not indulge in any crime of the same nature during the period of probation. He is directed to furnish bail bonds and file an undertaking before the trial Court within three months from today. With above mentioned modification, this revision petition stands disposed of. 11.02.2009 (Jasbir Singh) gk Judge