Criminal Revision No. 305 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 305 of 2003 Date of Decision : 7.3.2011. Mehar Singh ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ......Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Baldev Singh Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sayavir Yadav, ADA, Haryana, for the respondent-State. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) This revision is directed against the judgment dated January 14th, 2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak partly accepting the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated October 11th, 1999 of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rohtak. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under:- Offence Sentence Fine In default 279 IPC RI for 1 year Rs.1000/- RI for 3 months 304-A IPC RI for 2 years Rs.2000/- RI for 6 months The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. On November 14th, 1991 Raghbir Singh, Inder Singh, Smt. Kesar, Smt. Ankuri (all deceased) along with Mukesh, Jai Karan (injured), Jagat Singh and a few others were going from Rohtak to their village Kharainti on animal driven cart. Rajbir son of Raghbir Singh was following them on his bicycle. When they reached the Jind road, Rohtak, a bus No. HR-31-0823 of Haryana Roadways, Jind driven by the petitioner at a fast speed and in a rash and negligent manner came from behind and struck against the cart. As a result thereof, Inder Singh and Smt. Kesar died on the spot. Ankuri died on her way to the hospital. Raghbir Singh died after a few days. On the information received, Police reached the spot. On the Criminal Revision No. 305 of 2003 2 statement of Rajbir, First Information report was registered against the petitioner. The post-mortem examinations on the dead bodies were conducted in Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Rohtak. Photographs of the scene of occurrence (Exhibits PW-7/1 to PW-7/8) were taken. Spot map was drawn. 3. On the completion of the investigation, the accused was charged for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and as he pleaded not guilty, he was brought to trial. 4. Prosecution in support of its case examined Bishambar Dayal (PW-1), Rajbir-author of First Information-eye witness (PW-2), Jai Karan (PW-3), Jagat Singh-eye witness (PW-4), Ram Kishan, Head Constable (PW-5), Mahabir Singh, Duty Clerk in the office of General Manager, Haryana Roadways Jind (PW-6) who deposed that on the fateful day, the petitioner was driver of the offending bus, Jagat Singh (PW-7) who proved the photographs (Exhibits PW-7/1 to PW-7/8), Ramesh (PW-8) and Dilbag (PW-9). 5. Statement of petitioner was recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. He admitted the accident but fastened the negligence on the driver of the cart. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the judgments of the Courts below on the grounds that, (i) Rajbir-author of the First Information Report has not supported the prosecution case; (ii) the identity of the petitioner was not established as no identification parade was conducted; (iii) the Medical Officer who conducted the autopsy on the dead bodies of the deceased was not examined and; (iv) the Investigator has not been examined. In view of this, it has been urged that the petitioner deserves acquittal. 7. What the prosecution is required to prove the offence are the facts that (i) the accused was driving the vehicle; (ii) he drove it rashly or negligently and; (iii) Raghbir Singh, Inder Singh, Smt. Kesar and Smt. Ankuri Lal were hit resulting in their deaths. 8. The autopsy on the dead bodies of the deceased were conducted in Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Rohtak. The post-mortem examination reports of all the four Criminal Revision No. 305 of 2003 3 deceased were tendered in evidence by the prosecution but the same could not be exhibited. The Medical Officer who conducted the post mortem examination was also not examined. In the post-mortem examination reports, it has been specifically mentioned that injuries were suffered in a vehicular accident. Two dead bodies were shown lying on the spot in the photographs (Exhibits PW-7/1) to PW-7/8. In view of this, it hardly matters that Medical Officer who conducted the post-mortem examination was not examined particularly when it has been admitted by the petitioner that in the accident four persons died. On this score alone, case of the prosecution cannot be thrown over board. 9. It is not in dispute that petitioner was at the wheel of the offending bus at the time and place of occurrence, as it has been admitted by him in his statement. However, he has fastened the negligence on the driver of the cart. In this view of the matter, the only factor which remains to be decided is whether petitioner was rash or negligent in driving the vehicle. Jai Karan (PW-3) and Jagat Singh (PW-4) have narrated the occurrence. Both of them have stated that the deceased and the injured were going in the cart and the bus driven by the petitioner at a fast speed came from behind in a rash and negligent manner and struck against the cart. Two persons died on the spot and one on the way to the hospital and the fourth one after a few days. Both of them have come out unscathed through the cross-examination. No material discrepancy could creep in their testimony. Their testimony in other words is consistent. It is convincing and cogent also as they have described the acts of rash and negligence in so many words. They had no animus against the petitioner so as to be motivated to depose falsely. Their evidence is also corroborated by the site plan drawn at the spot. Though, the site plan has not been exhibited but the same is at page No.6 of the file of the trial Court of which this Court takes judicial notice. In the site plan, it has been shown that cart was on its extreme left side. The cart fell in the ditches. The bus stopped after covering more than 50 steps. This material piece of evidence also suggests that accident Criminal Revision No. 305 of 2003 4 took place as described by the aforesaid two witnesses and not as stated by the petitioner. With this overwhelming evidence, Raghbir Singh (PW-2) having not supported the prosecution case does not mean that prosecution failed to prove the case against the petitioner. Thus, all the ingredients have been proved to the hilt and there is no scope for having doubts. There is no escape from the conclusion that on November 14th, 1991 accused petitioner was driving the vehicle bearing No. HR-31-0823 on Jind road, Rohtak and he drove it in a rash and negligent manner and rammed his vehicle into the cart and caused deaths of Raghbir Singh, Inder Singh, Smt. Kesar and Ankuri and injuries to Mukesh and Jai Singh and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. 10. So far as non examination of the Investigator is concerned, it does not in any way create any doubt on the prosecution case specially when it was fully proved from the evidence of Jai Karan (PW-3) and Jagat Singh (PW-4). The Counsel for the petitioner could not point out as to what prejudice was caused to the accused on account of non-examination of the Investigating Officer. In the face of other cogent and convincing evidence, produced by the prosecution, to prove the guilt of the accused, non- examination of the Investigating Officer paled into insignificance. 11. The next submission of counsel for the petitioner that identity of the petitioner could not be established as no identification parade was conducted, is not at all convincing because in the statement recorded under Seetion 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the factum of accident has been admitted by the petitioner. Of course, he fastened negligence on the driver of the cart. Mahabir Singh (PW-6) Clerk in the office of General Manager Haryana Jind has also proved that on the day of occurrence, the petitioner was driver of the offending bus. This being so, the argument raised carries no weight. 12. Species of crime increase with development. Cyber crime is an example of recent era. The advent of motor vehicles brought with it the crime of road side accident. Increase in the Criminal Revision No. 305 of 2003 5 number of vehicles, rashness, negligence and a devil may care attitude of the drivers is taking a heavy toll if the statistics of deaths and bodily injury are considered. A maximum sentence of imprisonment for 2 years was provided under Section 304-A IPC. The situation has now become alarming and there are loud voices from all corners demanding a sterner punishment for the offence and time has come when the agony suffered by victims, their kith and kin and road users in general, has to be given the sympathy and the weight that it genuinely deserves. 13. Whether to take a lenient view in a case under Section 304-A IPC will depend on variety of factors, most importantly the facts and circumstances and degree of rashness or negligence involved in a particular case. 14. It will not be out of place to add that leniency in matter of sentence or extending the benefit of release on probation in such cases should not be a rule. Of course, Courts shall be justified in taking a lenient view where strong circumstances so demand. 15. In the case in hand, as many as four precious human lives were tragically cut short by the rash and negligent act of the petitioner. To show leniency to the accused shall be callousness as regards the next of the kin of the victim. 16. In view of what has been stated above, the impugned judgments do not suffer from any infirmity and are, therefore, upheld. Resultantly, the revision being devoid of merit is dismissed. 17. The petitioner was released on bail by this Court during the pendency of the revision. His bail/surety bonds are cancelled. He be arrested and sent to jail to undergo the remaining part of sentence. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, trial Judge is directed to comply with this order forthwith under intimation to this Court. 7.3.2011 (NAWAB SINGH) SN JUDGE