Crl. Revision No. 1439 of 2004 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 1439 of 2004 DATE OF DECISION: October 31, 2011 Satya Parkash .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Raj Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, DAG, Punjab, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner stands convicted for offences under Sections 304-A & 279 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year coupled with a fine of `1000/- A complaint against the petitioner was lodged by one Kewal Krishan, resident of Lamini, Bishkarma Nagar, Pathankot. The complainant had gone for duties as usual on 23.1.1998. He was returning with Satpal and Avtar Singh of his department towards Pathankot on Scooter bearing Registration No.PB-35A-4338. Satpal was driving the scooter. Complainant-Kewal Krishan and one Avtar Singh were sitting as pillion. Around 7.00 P.M on the same date, they reached Pangoli Chowk, Pathankot. A Maruti Van having registered Crl. Revision No. 1439 of 2004 -2- No.HP-02-5940 being driven by the accused in rash and negligent manner came from the side of Mamoon Cannt and dashed against the scooter. As a result, all three persons riding on the scooter fell down. Satpal, who was driving the scooter, received head injury. He was evacuated to Civil Hospital, Pathankot and subsequently, he was referred to DMC, Ludhiana. He, however, died while he was on the way to Ludhiana. The investigation followed. The Investigating Officer visited the site. Post-mortem of the deceased was conducted. The prosecution to prove the case, examined as many as 9 witnesses. The petitioner made a statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C and denied all the incrimination evidence and circumstances led into evidence against him. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the Magistrate convicted the petitioner on 26.3.2001. Aggrieved against this, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur. The appellate Court, however, maintained the conviction and sentence imposed. Learned counsel for the petitioner first submits that the accident was mainly caused due to contributory negligence by the deceased, who was driving the scooter. This was plea raised before the appellate Court as well. It is stated that three persons were riding on the scooter, whereas only two persons are permitted to have a ride on a scooter. As per the counsel, the scooter was entering the highway and suddenly had appeared and caused the accident. It was not the Maruti Van, which hit the scooter, but it was the scooter which went and hit the side of the Maruti Van. The damages of the Crl. Revision No. 1439 of 2004 -3- scooter would corroborate this fact. Counsel, accordingly, pleads that there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the accused- petitioner. Prosecution, however, had pointed out before the appellate Court that the petitioner had taken a defence of denial before the trial Court and had not pleaded the defence of contributory negligence. It was also pointed out that the Maruti Van driven by the petitioner had hit the scooter from front side. It can, thus, be said that a case of driving a scooter and hitting the Maruti Van as pleaded is not made out. On the basis of evidence, it is observed that the negligence on the part of the petitioner is clearly made out. The evidence on record indicates that the Maruti Van was coming at the speed of 100 kms per hour, whereas the scooter was being driven at 20 kms per hour. The accident took place at the intersection and chowk, where any driver of the vehicle like Maruti Van could be expected to slow down and look for any one approaching the chowk to show care and caution expected from a driver of motor vehicle. Mere speed may not indicate rashness but it is the want of care and circumspection on the part of the driver of a motor vehicle, that is required to be seen and appreciated. From the evidence and facts as established on record, the petitioner certainly was found wanting in exhibiting care and circumspection and thus, was rightly termed as rash and negligent while driving the vehicle. Driving a vehicle like Maruti Van at the speed of 100 kms can never be justified under any circumstances. Even the contributory negligence is not a valid defence for a charge of an offence under Section 304-A. The doctrine of Crl. Revision No. 1439 of 2004 -4- contributory negligence, a well known as a defence in the law of torts has as such, no place in criminal law. A fact that the victim has also contributed a little by his negligence is absolutely immaterial where there is an ample proof that the accused brought about the accident by his own negligence and rash driving. The petitioner in my view has been rightly found guilty on the basis of evidence and impugned order would not call for any interference. The sentence imposed is just adequate and would also not call for any interference. The submission that the petitioner is prepared to compensate and that incident is of 1998 would also not impress me to show any leniency. No amount of money can compensate the death of human being. The revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed. October 31, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE