Crl. Revision No.2715 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.2715 of 2009 Date of decision: 11.11.2009 Dharambir Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. H. P.S. Ishar, Advocate for the petitioner. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) The instant revision petition has been preferred by Dharambir Singh assailing his conviction and sentence by the Courts below. The petitioner was tried under Sections 279, 304-A and 427 IPC, on the allegation that petitioner while driving Haryana Roadways bus rashly and negligently hit the bus into a tractor resulting in death of Gulzar Singh at the spot and extensive damage to the tractor. The petitioner left the bus at the spot and fled away. Learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pehowa vide judgment dated 07.01.2009 and order dated 09.01.2009convicted the petitioner under Sections 279, 304-A and 427 IPC and sentenced him to fine of Rs.500/- under Section 279 IPC; to rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 304-A IPC and to rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 427 IPC. Substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. In appeal preferred by the petitioner, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra vide Crl. Revision No.2715 of 2009 -2- judgment dated 07.10.2009, while upholding the conviction of the petitioner reduced his sentence from imprisonment for two years to imprisonment for one year under Section 304-A IPC and remaining part of the sentence was maintained. Feeling still aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that in fact the deceased who was driving the tractor was himself guilty of rashness and negligence. The contention cannot be accepted because the petitioner did not lead any evidence in defence to substantiate this contention. On the other hand, duty roster of the bus driver was taken and according to it, the petitioner was driving the bus at the time of accident. The bus and the tractor were found at the spot in accidental condition. The tractor had broken into two pieces. There is thus no dispute that the accident occurred between the bus being driven by the petitioner and the tractor being driven by the deceased. Ravinder Singh PW-4 who is son of the deceased and Balwinder Singh PW-10 both eye witnesses have deposed that the petitioner was driving the bus rashly and negligently resulting in the accident. The said evidence is corroborated by other evidence led by the prosecution. Prosecution evidence is sufficient to prove the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. In addition to the aforesaid, both the Courts below have come to concurrent finding of fact regarding guilt of the petitioner. The said finding is based on appreciation of evidence and is not shown to be perverse or illegal so as to warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Crl. Revision No.2715 of 2009 -3- Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Ravinder Singh PW-4 being son of the deceased is an interested witness. However, his testimony cannot be discarded merely on this ground. This witness had no animus against the petitioner so as to implicate him in a false case. Moreover, it has been proved beyond doubt from documentary as well as oral evidence that the petitioner was driver of the offending bus at the time of accident. Factum of accident between the said bus and the tractor of the deceased is also proved. Consequently, the fact that Ravinder Singh happens to be son of the deceased pales into insignificance and becomes immaterial. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment of this court in the case of Balwant Singh versus State of Haryana, 2007(4) RCR (Criminal) 927. In that case, even investigating officer had not been examined. Complainant was father of the deceased. There was no corroboration of his testimony. Consequently the accused was acquitted. In the instant case, however, Balwinder Singh PW-10 who is an independent witness has corroborated the testimony of Ravinder Singh PW-4 son of the deceased. Investigating officer has also been examined in the instant case. Accordingly judgment in the case of Balwant Singh (supra) has no applicability to the facts of the instant case. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for release of the petitioner on probation, relying on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Paul George versus State of N.C.T. Of Delhi, 2008 (2)RCR (Criminal) 478. However, in that case, the litigation prolonged for 20 years and the accused who was Head Constable Crl. Revision No.2715 of 2009 -4- Driver had been dismissed from service. In the facts of that case, the Hon'ble Apex Court thought it fit to release the accused on probation. However, it has not been laid down as a principle of law in that judgment that in every such case, the accused should be released on probation. On the other hand, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dalbir Singh versus State of Haryana, (2000) 5 SCC 82, held that accused guilty of offence under Section 304-A IPC should not be released on probation and deterrent punishment should be imposed. In that case, accused stood convicted under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. Prayer for release of said accused on probation was declined by Hon'ble Supreme Court observing that Criminal Courts cannot treat the nature of offence under Section 304- A IPC as attracting the benevolent provision of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to release the accused on probation. Sentence of imprisonment for one year for offence under Section 304-A IPC in that case was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In the instant case, sentence of imprisonment under Sections 304-A IPC has already been reduced by the appellate Court from two years to one year. The said reduced sentence cannot be said to be excessive and does not warrant further reduction. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 11.11.2009. A.Kaundal