Crl. Revision No.1370 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1370 OF 2002. DATE OF DECISION : 19-11-2009. Paramjit Singh. ...... PETITIONER Versus State of Haryana. ..... RESPONDENT CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. J.S.Virk, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S.Randhawa, Additional A.G., Haryana. *** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 15.07.2002 rendered by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, vide which it dismissed the appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.04.2002 rendered by the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karnal vide which the accused was held guilty for offences punishable under Sections 279/304-A of Indian Penal Code(hereinafter referred to as 'Act') and was sentenced to Crl. Revision No.1370 of 2002 -2- undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for offence under Section 279 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 304-A IPC. However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 11.07.1993 Sandeep Kumar – complainant alongwith his brother Sudeep and mother Smt. Murti Devi started their journey from Karnal to Kurukshetra in Maruti Van No. DDA-4514. The van was being driven by Ashok Kumar. He was sitting on the front seat beside the driver of the van whereas his brother Sudeep and mother were occupying rear seats. When they reached Raipur Rora near Barana turn, a Haryana roadways bus bearing registration No. HR-03-7931 being driven by accused – Paramjit Singh in a rash and negligent manner came from opposite direction. Driver of bus could not control and hit against the van by bringing the bus on wrong side, despite the best effort of the driver of the van to avoid the accident by bringing the van on Kacha portion on his side of the road. Due to the accident occupants of the van sustained injuries. Brother of the complainant, Sudeep, succumbed to injuries. After registration of case and completion of investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed against the accused for his trial for offences under Section 279/304-A IPC. He was charged accordingly by the learned trial court to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 3. In order to substantiate the allegations against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. PW1 is Surinder Crl. Revision No.1370 of 2002 -3- Singh, SI who prepared the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. PW2 is Dr. Y.K.Sethi, who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased – Sudeep and proved his report Ex.PW2/A. PW3 is Sandeep – complainant and eye-witness of this occurrence, who supported the case of prosecution as detailed above. PW4 is Smt. Murti Devi, another occupant of the van at the time of accident, who corroborated the version of her son, Sandeep, PW3. PW5 is Amir Singh, who had identified the dead body in the hospital. PW6 is Harpal Singh ASI, who had taken into possession the vehicles involved in the accident. PW7 is Pawan Kumar, photographer who has proved photographs Ex.PW7/A to D. PW8 is Angrez Singh who had taken the van on superdari. PW9 is Gurmukh Singh who had taken the bus involved in the accident on superdari. PW10 is Pal Singh, an official of Haryana Roadways, who deposed that Paramjit Singh, accused was driver of the bus on the date of accident and he has proved duty roster Ex.PW10/A. PW11 is Ram Bhaj, who conducted mechanical examination of maruti van and bus No. HR-03-7931. He has proved his report Ex.PW11/A. 4. Statement of accused in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded by the learned trial court in which he denied the incriminating evidence coming against him and pleaded innocence. However, the revision-petitioner did not lead any evidence in his defence. 5. Learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279/304-A IPC Crl. Revision No.1370 of 2002 -4- beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt. Hence he was convicted and sentenced as aforementioned. The appeal filed against the judgment was dismissed by the court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karnal vide impugned judgment against which the present revision petition has been filed. 6. I have heard Mr. J.S.Virk, learned counsel for the revision- petitioner and Mr. S.S.Randhawa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana and have gone through the whole record. 7. It is settled principle of law that in its revisional jurisdiction, this Court is not to reappreciate and reappraise the evidence until and unless, it comes to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the trial court are perverse, illegal and erroneous on account of misreading of evidence. The courts below while relying upon the cogent and convincing evidence of prosecution witnesses, were right in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt. 8. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the revision- petitioner that it was raining on that day and the accused could not apply the brakes and hence, there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus. This plea was already considered by the learned Appellate Court and was rightly turned down as accused was supposed to drive more cautiously during rainy season as he must be aware of the fact that sometime vehicles could not stop immediately on applying brakes on a rainy day. 9. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the Crl. Revision No.1370 of 2002 -5- revision-petitioner that occurrence had taken place on 11.07.1993 and that hence, he has been facing trial for the last more than 16 years and has suffered much agony of protracted trial. It is further contended that he is not a previous convict and hence, it is argued that he should be given the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act. On the point he has also placed reliance upon judgment delivered by coordinate Bench of this Court in Rajpal v. State of Haryan, 2009(3) RCR (Crl.) 323. 10. Law on the point as to whether the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act should be granted to the accused convicted for offence under Section 304-A of IPC has been settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana, 2000(2) RCR(Crl.) 816 by observing that the courts should not as a normal rule, invoke the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act when the accused is convicted of the offence under Section 304-A of IPC in causing death of human beings by rash or negligent driving. Relevant paragraphs No.12 and 13 of the judgment read as under:- “12. In State of Karnataka v. Krishna alias Raju (1987) 1 SCC 538 : (AIR 1987 SC 861 : 1987 Cri LJ 776) this Court did not allow a sentence of fine, imposed on a driver who was convicted under S. 304-A, I.P.C. to remain in force although the High Court too had confirmed the said sentence when an accused was convicted of the offence of driving a bus callously and causing death of a human being. In that case this Court enhanced the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for six months besides imposing a fine. Crl. Revision No.1370 of 2002 -6- 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 S. 304-A, I.P.C. as attracting the benevolent provisions of S. 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 professional 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 automobiles.” 11. This judgment was subsequently followed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in B.Nagabhushanam v. State of Karnataka, 2008(3) RCR(Crl.) 50 and the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act was denied to the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC. Crl. Revision No.1370 of 2002 -7- 12. Hence, there is no force in the argument of the learned counsel for the revision-petitioner that he deserves the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act. He has taken life of an innocent person by driving his bus in a rash and negligent manner and hitting against the van in which deceased was travelling, by taking the bus on wrong side and that too on the Kacha path of the road. He even did not care to remove the injured to the hospital and ran away after causing the accident. Hence, merely on the ground that he is facing trial for the last 16 years, it cannot be said that he deserves the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act. Rajpal's case (supra) on which reliance has been placed is not of any help to him in view of the authoritative pronounced by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dalbir Singh's case (supra) followed in B.Nagabhushanam's case (supra) and in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as narrated above. 13. The present revision-petitioner has already been treated with leniency by the courts below. He was only sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 304-A IPC. 14. Hence, for the reasons recorded above the present revision petition being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. The judgments of conviction and order of sentence are upheld. 15. Bail bonds of the revision-petitioner stands cancelled. The concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate shall take necessary steps to comply with the judgment with due promptitude keeping in view the applicability of provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Crl. Revision No.1370 of 2002 -8- Procedure and submit his compliance report within two months. 16. The District and Sessions Judge concerned is also directed to ensure that the directions are complied with and that compliance report is sent within the time limit, to this Court. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) November 19, 2009. JUDGE 'om'