IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision 2527 of 2009 Date of decision: 2.3.2010 Rajwant Singh …Petitioner Versus State of UT Chandigarh …Respondent Present: Mr RN Maurya, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr PK Khindria, Advocate for UT Chandigarh. S.S. SARON, J. This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 7.9.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, whereby the appeal of the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 30.10.2006 passed by the learned trial Magistrate, had been dismissed. The petitioner was tried by the learned trial Magistrate for having committed offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. The complainant – Sangat Singh got his statement recorded before ASI Satish Kumar to the effect that he along with his wife – Simar Kaur had come to meet his brother at Panchkula. They were present at the local Bus Stand at about 5.15 p.m. on 23.1.2002 for going back to Rajpura. At that time, Bus No. PB 12 D 9809 being driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit his wife (Simar Kaur) and the left tyre went over her body. She was seriously injured and taken by the driver (petitioner) and the complainant to the PGI Chandigarh. The doctor at the PGI Chandigarh declared her dead. On these 1 Criminal Revision 2527 of 2009 allegations, the FIR was registered. The bus was apprehended and the petitioner was arrested on 23.1.2002. The post-mortem of the dead body was conducted. Besides, the investigation was carried out and the charge report (Challan) was filed in the Court of learned trial Magistrate. The petitioner was charged for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined 11 witnesses. The petitioner in his statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC denied the allegations of the prosecution leveled against him and stated that a false case had been registered. The trial Magistrate, after considering the evidence and material on record, held the petitioner guilty of the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for a period of one year; besides to pay a fine of Rs 200/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 15 days, for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. He was also sentenced for a period of six months for the offence under Section 279 IPC. Both the sentences, however, were ordered to run concurrently. The petitioner, aggrieved against the said order, filed an appeal, which has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, vide order dated 7.9.2009. Aggrieved against the same, the present petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has no connection with the accident as the complainant – Sangat Singh who is the eye-witness, deposed in his evidence that when his wife was hit by the offending vehicle, they were standing at counter No.10 of Bus Stand for taking a bus to Rajpura whereas the bus of the petitioner had no connection with counter No.10 and it was going to the exit gate. It is submitted that it is not the case of the prosecution that the offending vehicle 2 Criminal Revision 2527 of 2009 rammed on the platform and neither is it possible because of the height of the platform from the road which leads to the exit gate. It is also submitted that the mechanical test report of the offending bus found no fresh dent or scratch; besides the headlight and indicators were in working condition. This, according to the learned counsel, does not support the evidence of the complainant. It is also submitted that as per the site plan, the position of the dead body is on the road leading to the exit gate, which also does not support the prosecution case. In any case, it is submitted that the petitioner is a first time offender and does not have any criminal record. Therefore, he is liable to be given the benefit of probation. In response, learned counsel for UT Chandigarh has submitted that the Courts below have concurrently held the petitioner to be liable for the accident and rightly convicted him. Therefore, the facts and circumstances recorded, are liable to be sustained and upheld. Besides, it is submitted that keeping in view the death that has been caused due to the negligent and rash driving of the petitioner, he is not entitled to the benefit of probation. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioner has been convicted and sentenced by both the Courts below for causing the death of Simar Kaur by hitting his bus against her at the local Bus Stand Chandigarh. The husband of the deceased who is the complainant, was with her and had witnessed the entire occurrence and has deposed in this regard in the Court. Both the Courts below have concurrently held the accident to have occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel for 3 Criminal Revision 2527 of 2009 the petitioner that the complainant and his wife (deceased) were standing at counter No.10 of the Bus Stand and the petitioner has no connection with the same, is not of much consequence. Sangat Singh – complainant (PW4) has stated that he and his wife (deceased) was standing at counter No.10 of local Bus Stand, Sector 17, Chandigarh to take a bus for Rajpura. A bus No. PB 12 D 9809 was coming from the Dhaba side and going to the outer gate of the Bus Stand which was driven by the accused (petitioner) in a manner so rash and negligent and without blowing horn, hit his wife at a high speed. The said statement in fact is at a point of time before the complainant – Sangat Singh and his wife had got on to the bus. PW6 – ASI Satish Kumar, the IO of the case, prepared the rough site plan (Ex PW6/E) in respect of the place of the occurrence at the instance of the complainant. A perusal of the said site plan (Ex PW6/E) shows that the accident had occurred at Point – A where the offending bus driven by the petitioner hit Simar Kuar (deceased). Point-B in the site plan is counter No.10. This counter is the last counter in the row of counters where the passengers board the busses and Point-A where the accident occurred, is not at much distance from counter No.10. Therefore, the bus hit Simar Kaur (deceased) while it was going out towards the outer gate, which is on the South of the Bus Stand and is not at much distance from counter No.10. As such, the complainant and his wife were at counter No.10 for boarding a bus to Rajpura and the bus driven by the petitioner hit Simar Kaur. In the circumstances, the contention that the offending bus had no connection with counter No.10 and that it is not the prosecution’s case that it rammed on the platform, is absolutely inconsequential as counter No.10 is along side the road where the busses go to the outer gate of the Bus Stand. Therefore, 4 Criminal Revision 2527 of 2009 it is when the complainant and his wife got down from the counter on to the main road to board the bus that the bus of the petitioner hit Simar Kaur (deceased). The contention that no dent or scratch was seen and the head light and the indicators were in working condition, is also devoid of merit as it is not a case where the bus had hit against a heavy object which would cause dent or scratch or affect the headlights or the indictors of the bus. The bus having hit a lady, obviously would have no scratch or dent and neither would it affect the headlights or the indictors. The facts and circumstances of the case shows that the petitioner had caused the death of the lady by driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner. He has been sentenced to imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. The same is commensurate with the offending action on his part. The facts and circumstances do not warrant the grant of probation. In view of the above, there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 2.3.2010. ( S.S.SARON ) ASR JUDGE 5 Criminal Revision 2527 of 2009 6