Crl. Revision No.2053 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2053 OF 2002. DATE OF DECISION : 10-12-2009. Jagir Singh. ...... PETITIONER Versus State of Haryana. ..... RESPONDENT CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S.Randhawa, Addl. A.G., Haryana. *** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 01.10.2002 rendered by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, vide which it dismissed the appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 13.09.1996 rendered by the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hisar, vide which it convicted the present revision-petitioner for offences under Sections 279/304-A of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC') and however, the sentence of imprisonment for offence under Section 304-A IPC was Crl. Revision No.2053 of 2002 -2- reduced from eight months R.I. to six months R.I. while maintaining the remaining sentences including the sentence of fine. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 26.07.1989 Sushil Kumar – complainant was driving a scooter bearing No. HYW-4598 and Subhash (deceased) was pillion rider. The scooter was being driven on the extreme left side of the road at a moderate speed. When they reached near Central Hall, Hisar, a truck bearing registration No.HRB-4861, which was being driven by the accused – Jagir Singh in a rash and negligent manner, came from the backside and in a process of overtaking the scooter, the driver of the truck hit against the scooter from backside due to which complainant fell down on one side of the road whereas, Subhash was run over by the truck and hence, sustained injuries. He was removed to the hospital and however, he succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. 3. After registration of FIR investigation was taken in hand. Postmortem examination on the dead body of Subhash was got conducted. Statement of witnesses were recorded. The scooter and truck, involved in the accident, were taken into possession and both the vehicles were mechanically examined. Photographs of the place of occurrence were taken and rough site plan of the same was also prepared which is Ex.PW4/E. After completion of investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed against the accused for trial of offences punishable under Sections 279/304-A IPC. 4. Accused was charged for offences under Sections 279/304- A IPC by the learned Trial Court to which he did not plead guilty and Crl. Revision No.2053 of 2002 -3- claimed trial. 5. In order to substantiate the allegations against the accused, prosecution examined as many as four witnesses. PW1 is Sushil Kumar – complainant who deposed regarding the case of the prosecution. PW2 is Fateh Singh in whose presence the vehicles involved in the accident were taken into possession. However, he did not support the prosecution version. PW3 is Dr. Ramesh Jindal, who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Subhash and proved his report Ex.PW3/A. PW 4 is Jai Hind, ASI, who had recorded the statement of the complainant and investigated this case. 6. In the statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, the accused denied the incriminating evidence coming against him and pleaded innocence, however, he did not lead any evidence in his defence. 7. Learned Trial Court convicted the present revision- petitioner for offences under Sections 279/304-A IPC and sentenced him for the said offences. Accused preferred appeal against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Trial Court before the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, who dismissed the same except for modification in the order of sentence and hence, present revision petition. 8. I have heard Mr. N.S.Shekhawat, learned counsel for the revision-petitioner and Mr. S.S.Randhawa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana and have gone through the whole record carefully. 9. It is settled principle of law that in its revisional Crl. Revision No.2053 of 2002 -4- 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. 10. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the revision- petitioner that Fateh Singh, PW2 had not supported the version of the prosecution, in whose presence the vehicles involved in the accident were taken into possession. However, this plea has already been considered by the learned Trial Court and moreover, Fateh Singh is not the eye-witness of the occurrence. It has further been argued that the only eye-witness of the occurrence, Sushil Kumar, has deposed that the truck was coming from backside of the scooter and that he came to know about the accident when Subhash had already fallen down from the scooter. However, the mere fact that truck came from behind the scooter and hit against it due to which both the riders of the scooter had fallen down goes to prove that the truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver. The statement of complainant found corroboration from site plan Ex.PW4/E, of the place of occurrence. Driver of the truck should have taken proper care while overtaking the scooter as the scooter was going ahead of the truck. 11. Both the courts below have found the deposition of Sushil Kumar – complainant(PW1) convincing and reliable. Deposition of the Crl. Revision No.2053 of 2002 -5- complainant is fully corroborated by the medical evidence as well. 12. Hence, no fault can be found with the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court as well as by the learned Appellate Court. 13. So far as order of sentence is concerned, it is contended by the learned counsel for the revision-petitioner that he has already undergone 29 days' imprisonment and that he has been facing agony of trial since 26.07.1989 i.e. for the last about 20 years and hence, it is argued that he should be given benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 or the sentence be reduced to the period already undergone by him. On the point he has also placed reliance upon 2008 (2) RCR(Crl.) 478, Paul George v. State of NCT of Delhi. 14. On the other hand, it was argued by the learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Haryana that the present revision- petitioner has taken away the life of a person by driving the truck in rash and negligent manner and hence, taking into consideration the nature of offence, no interference in the order of sentence passed by the learned Appellate Court is called for. 15. 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 Crl. Revision No.2053 of 2002 -6- 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. 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 Crl. Revision No.2053 of 2002 -7- 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.” 16. 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. 17. In the present case, while driving his truck, the accused hit the scooter from behind and crushed the pillion rider of the scooter under the wheels of his truck hence, taking into consideration the legal proposition settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Dalbir Singh's case (supra) followed in B.Nagabhushanam's case (supra) and in view of peculiar fact and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that it is not a fit case in which the benefit of probation under Probation of Offenders Act should be granted to the accused. Learned Appellate Court has already reduced the sentence to six months R.I. for offence under Section 304-A IPC and hence, in my view no further reduction in the sentence is called for merely on the ground that the present revision- petitioner is facing trial for the last about 20 years. 18. 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. 19. Bail bond of the revision-petitioner stands cancelled. The concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate shall take necessary steps to Crl. Revision No.2053 of 2002 -8- comply with the judgment with due promptitude keeping in view the applicability of provision of Section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure and submit his compliance report within two months. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) December 10, 2009. JUDGE 'om' Note: Whether to be referred to reporter? Yes / No