In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 835 of 1996 Date of decision: April 02, 2008 Jaswant Singh ... Petitioner versus State of Punjab ... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. B.S. Siroha, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C.S. Brar, DAG, Punjab for the respondent. A. N. Jindal, J This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment dated 1.10.1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib dismissing the appeal of the accused-petitioner Jaswant Singh (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') against the judgment dated 21.12.1994 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amloh convicting and sentencing the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.3000/- under Section 304-A IPC. Rajinder Kumar-complainant (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant'), in his statement before the police disclosed that on 16.3.1992, he along with Ram Singh (PW2) was coming from the Sirhand Side and Tarlochan Singh was going ahead of them. After crossing the gol chowk, when he reached opposite the Buttan Lal chowk, the petitioner while driving truck No.HRB 227, rashly and negligently, loaded with sugarcane coming from Sirhand side and after crossing them a little, turned Crl. Revision No. 835 of 1996 -2- *** turtle on his left hand side. Resultantly Tarlochan Singh was buried under the sugarcane. Harbhajan Singh had also arrived there by that time. When Tarlochan Singh was taken out of the sugarcane heap, he was found dead. On the aforesaid statement of the complainant Ex.PW3/A, FIR was registered against the petitioner. The police swung into action. Completion of the investigation was followed by a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The accused was charged under Section 304-A IPC, to which he opted to contest. The prosecution in order to substantiate the charges, examined as many as six witnesses. Out of them Ram Singh (PW2), Rajinder Singh (PW3) are the eye witnesses. Dr. Baljeet Singh (PW1) proved the postmortem report Ex.PA, Karam Singh (PW4) Mechanic carried out the mechanical test of truck bearing No. HRB 227 and proved his report Ex.PW4/A. ASI Lal Chand (PW5) had recorded the formal FIR and SI Malkiat Singh (PW6) is the Investigating Officer. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication. The trial ended in conviction. The appeal also failed. Arguments heard. Record perused. Primarily two questions i.e. question of identity and matter of lack of proof regarding rash and negligence have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but the same are found to be unmerited. The alleged occurrence took place at 6.30 p.m. on 16.3.1992. Since it was the month of March, therefore, there must be sufficient light at the time of Crl. Revision No. 835 of 1996 -3- *** occurrence. Both the witnesses were on foot and at their right side the truck turned turtle. They had seen Tarlochan Singh as well as the accused. Both the witnesses have stated that they took out Tarlochan Singh from underneath the sugarcane heap and also the accused from inside the truck. Both of them have stated that truck went out of control from the driver, therefore, it turned turtle. It is also in evidence that the accused after spending some time at the spot, slipped away, therefore, the witnesses appear to have interacted with the accused for sufficient time and had the opportunity to see him. As such, they must be carrying impression of his face in their minds, therefore, no dispute could be raised about his identity. Since the witnesses did not know the petitioner personally, therefore, they did not give his name and address. Even statement Ex.PW3/A made by Rajinder is silent qua the name and address of the petitioner. It has also come in evidence that even after the occurrence and at the time when the petitioner was arrested, they had identified him. As a matter of fact, they had got arrested him. It is established from the evidence that on 20.3.1992, both the witnesses, when were present at the bus stand, they saw the accused coming in the bus from Ambala side. They informed the police on the basis of which, the accused was arrested. They have also identified the accused in the court. Thus, the witnesses who had sufficient opportunity to come in contact with the accused, having seen him driving the vehicle and causing accident, having taken him out of truck; their stay with him for some time and they subsequently got him arrested impels me to reach the conclusion that it is not the case of mistaken identity. Now coming to the other argument, it may be observed that Crl. Revision No. 835 of 1996 -4- *** both the witnesses in their sworn testimonies have unequivocally testified that the accused drove the truck at such a excessive speed that he lost control of the vehicle. Rajinder Kumar (PW3) has even given the speed of the truck at 60 or 70 kmph. While delineating over the scenario of the case, it may be observed that the driving of the truck on such a busy road, when it was in the town, at such a high speed which resulted into its turning turtle convinces the conscience of the court that the accused was guilty of committing rash and negligent act. The rashness or negligence could be inferred not only from the direct evidence but from the other attending circumstances of the case including obligation of the person on the wheel as to what he omitted to do which he ought to have done and what was his duty at the relevant time and in a particular situation. The evidence of the two witnesses that the accused was driving rashly and negligently is established from the circumstances that he was driving the truck loaded with sugarcane, at excessive speed without blowing any horn in a crowded area on a busy road. The turning of the truck turtle is corroborated by the mechanical report Ex.PW4/A given by Karam Singh Mechanic (PW4). He has given the particulars of the various parts which were damaged due to the turning of the truck turtle. Consequently, it would be safe to conclude that the accused was driving the truck so rashly and negligently that it lost control and turned turtle, as a result of which Tarlochan Singh came under it and died. Further corroboration to the prosecution version is lent by Dr. Baljit Singh (PW1), who conducted postmortem examination of the dead body of Tarlochan Singh. He has stated that he died instantaneously on suffering Crl. Revision No. 835 of 1996 -5- *** injuries and he has also opined that the death was due to shock and hemorrhage due to head injury which could be possible due to vehicular accident. No plausible explanation has been set forth and proved in order to establish his innocence by the petitioner. No doubt in cases of death involving the conduct of the accused in moving rashly and negligently on the busy roads without caring for precious lives and rights of the others to use and enjoy those roads. Their mental state to have knowledge to have occurred any untoward incident of loss of life due to their rash, negligent and careless act is inbuilt. The truck drivers who are known as kings of the roads, having loaded their trucks in excess of the permissible limits, at least should exercise greater care and caution and keep in mind that besides them, other living things are also moving on the roads. They move their vehicles in such a manner as to take valuable lives within twinkling of their eye for a ride, therefore, to extend benefit of probation would amount to enhancing criminality in motor vehicle cases. Consequently, the accused, in the given circumstances of the case, does not deserve any leniency, rather he appears to have been awarded lessor sentence than what he deserved. Resultantly, the revision petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. April 02, 2008 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge To be referred to reporter: Yes/No.