In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No.603 of 2002 Date of decision: November 18, 2008 Kaur Singh ... Petitioner versus State of Punjab ... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate Amicus Curiae for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Rawat, AAG, Punjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Accused-petitioner Kaur Singh (herein referred as 'the petitioner') while driving bus bearing registration No.PB-03D-5576, caused two causalities on 26.7.1997, as a sequel of which he was tried and vide judgment dated 11.8.1999 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gidderbaha, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 304-A IPC and to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 279 IPC. However, the Appellate Court reduced the sentence of imprisonment to one year under Section 304-A IPC. Factual matrix of the case is that on 26.7.1997 at about 8.30 a.m. Major Singh complainant (herein referred as 'the complainant') was standing at the bus stand of the village Chhattaina for going to Gidderbaha. In the meantime, Kartar Singh while driving jeep bearing registration No.HR-22A-2963 and carrying Charanjit Singh, Baljinder Singh and Nasib Kaur came there. The complainant took the lift for going to Gidderbaha, however, when they reached near the brick kiln in the area of village Kot Bhai, the petitioner, while driving the aforesaid bus belonging to Dabwali Transport Company, came from the opposite side and dashed against the jeep, as an impact of which all the occupants of the jeep including Nasib Kaur suffered injuries. Kartar Singh died at the spot, whereas, Nasib Kaur Crl. Revision No.603 of 2002 -2- *** died at D.M.C. Ludhiana. On the statement made by Major Singh (Ex.PF) FIR was recorded. The case was investigated and completion of the investigation was followed by a presentation of the challan. The petitioner was charged under Sections 304-A, 337,338,279 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. In order to connect the petitioner with the crime, the prosecution examined Darshan Singh (PW1), Dr. H.N. Singh (PW2), Major Singh (PW3) Baljinder Singh (PW4), Charanjit Singh (PW5), ASI Jarnail Singh (PW6), Dr. Ravinder Kumar Kamboj (PW7), Des Raj (PW8) and Jawahar Lal (PW9). In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the petitioner denied all the allegations and pleaded his false implication. However, no evidence was led in defence. The trial ended in conviction. The appeal filed by him was dismissed with certain modification in the sentence. Arguments heard. Record perused. As regards the first contention raised by Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate Amicus Curiae in this case, regarding identification of the petitioner, it deserves notice that the accident took place in the day time at about 8.30 a.m. The witnesses had identified the petitioner, so as the complainant. The complainant was not knowing his name, therefore, he rightly recorded in the FIR that he came to know about his name later on. The complainant in his statement has testified that he already knew the petitioner as he had seen him previously on the wheels of the said bus. The case cannot be said to be of doubtful identity as his name figures in the FIR. Baljinder Singh (PW4) and Charanjit Singh (PW5) have corroborated the testimony of Major Singh complainant (PW3). No animus, bias or prejudice has been alleged or proved against the petitioner in order to dub the witnesses to be interested or inimical. No particular defence was set up by the accused so as to belie the prosecution version in any manner. I also do not find any merit in the other contention that ruqa Ex.PC discloses that the injured was got admitted by Baljinder Singh son of Mithu Singh, whereas, the prosecution examined Baljinder Singh son of Jit Singh. Similarly, Major Singh complainant was recorded as son of Tara Crl. Revision No.603 of 2002 -3- *** Singh, whereas, his father's name is Gurbachan Singh. It was also pointed out from ruqa Ex.PC that one child was also present and was admitted in the hospital, whereas, according to the prosecution no child suffered injuries in the said accident. Having scrutinized the evidence on record, the aforesaid discrepancies with regard to the mistake of names or the suffering of the injuries by the child hardly effect the substratum of the present case. All the injured witnesses have been examined and they cannot be said to have not suffered injuries at the time of the accident as the medical reports corroborate this fact, rather the mistake in the name of their father appears to have creeped in due to some clerical mistake on the part of the doctor. So as the reference with regard to arrival of the child is concerned, Charanjit Singh was 12 years of age at the time of incident, therefore, reference with regard to arrival of the child may be pertaining to him. As regards the argument that Major Singh and Charanjit Singh were not medically examined, it does not lend any support to the version set up by the defence as where there are many injured, then the people with the minor injuries are seldom examined. In the instant case two persons had died and many persons were injured. Des Raj (PW8) had proved on record registration of the bus involved in the accident. Jawahar Lal (PW9) had proved the photographs Ex.P6 to Ex.P11 and negatives thereof as Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. Darshan Singh Mechanic (PW1) had mechanically examined both the vehicles involved in the accident and proved his reports as Ex.PA and Ex.PB in this respect. Even otherwise, there are concurrent findings both the courts below regarding the rash and negligent act of the petitioner for commission of the crime. Nothing such was brought to the surface so as to disturb the findings of fact returned by both the courts below. As regards the plea with regard to extending benefit of probation, since two lives were lost and many other suffered injuries on account of rash and negligent driving by the petitioner, and if he had been little careful then the accident could be avoided, therefore, he could not be extended this benefit, rather imparting of such benefit would amount to travesty of justice and send wrong signals to the society. The Apex Court Crl. Revision No.603 of 2002 -4- *** in case Dalbir Singh vs. State of Haryana 2000 (2) RCR (Criminal) 816 also discouraged extending such benefit while observing as under :- “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 Section 304-A IPC as attracting the benevolent provisions of Section 4 of the PO Act. While considering the quantum of sentence, to be imposed for the offence of causing death by rash and 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 be afforded 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.” Similar observations have been made by the Apex Court in case B.Nagabhushanam vs. State of Karnataka, 2008 (3) RCR (Criminal) 50, while relying upon Dalbir Singh's case (supra). In view of the above, the request forwarded by the learned counsel for the petitioner for extending benefit of probation is declined. Crl. Revision No.603 of 2002 -5- *** Resultantly, the instant petition stands dismissed. The impugned judgment is maintained. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muktsar is directed to take steps to procure the custody of the petitioner for serving remaining part of his sentence. November 18, 2008 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge