Criminal Revision No.106 of 2008 (1) ***** In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision : 22.1.2008. Raj Kapoor ..... Petitioner. vs. The State of Punjab ..... Respondent. Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.S.Madan. Present: Mr.Vijay Rana,Advocate,for the petitioner. R.S.Madan, J. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 3.3.2006 rendered by Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, whereby he upheld the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dasuya, in FIR No.35 dated 2.4.1997, registered under Section 279 and 304-A IPC at Police Station Mukerian, vide which the petitioner along with his co-accused Parminder Singh was sentenced to undergo RI for six months under Section 279 and RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 304-A IPC and in default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo RI for two months. In brief the facts of the case are that on 2.4.1997, the police recorded the statement of Dharam Singh who discloses that today he had come to Mukerian in connection with some domestic work and was standing on the turn of Tehsil Complex, Mukerian, at about 5.00 p.m. for going to his village. In the meantime, a bus bearing No.PB-08J 9780 came from the side of Talwara Chowk and stopped on the turn of Tehsil Complex. Criminal Revision No.106 of 2008 (2) ***** Some passengers came down from the bus and in the end a lady by the name of Gian Kaur wife of Ajit Singh, Caste Lobana, resident of Village Muradpur Awana, was in the process of alighting from the front door of the bus when Conductor Raj Kapoor (petitioner) of the bus blew the whistle and the driver drove the bus. Due to sudden movement of the bus, Gian Kaur fell down and the rear tyre of the bus passed over her abdomen and thigh. She was seriously injured. The people raised roula and the bus stopped after covering some distance. The complainant asked conductor Raj Kapoor and driver Parminder Singh of the bus to get the lady admitted in Civil Hospital, Mukerian. The complainant then went to the house of Gian Kaur to bring her family members. When he returned, she succumbed to her injuries. According to the complainant, Gian Kaur had suffered road side accident on the negligence of the driver and conductor by falling down from the bus No.PB-08J 9780. After completion of the investigation, the challan against the petitioner and his co-accused was presented in the court of Ilaqa Magistrate. After going through the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C and the documents attached with it, a prima facie case for the commission of offence under Sections 279/304-A IPC was made out against the petitioner and his co- accused and charge was framed against them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined six witnesses in support of its case, namely, PW1 Dharam Sukhdev Singh, PW2 Dr.Naresh Kumar, PW3 Mohinder Singh, PW4 Bachan Singh, PW5 Gurbachan Singh and PW6 Dr.Shavinder Singh and closed the evidence. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the petitioner Criminal Revision No.106 of 2008 (3) ***** pleaded innocence and false implication and in defence petitioner Raj Kapoor appeared as DW1. On the completion of trial, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner as detailed in the earlier part of the order. Feeling aggrieved against the order of conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, who vide his order dated 3.3.2006 dismissed the appeal. The accused- petitioner has now knocked the doors of this court by filing the present revision petition. I have heard arguments addressed by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is pertinent to mention here that this revision was filed along with Criminal Misc. No.3013 of 2008 with a prayer to condone the delay of 598 days in filing the revision. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was not aware of the fact that his appeal was disposed of by the learned Sessions Judge, whereby his appeal was dismissed. On learning the dismissal of appeal, the police arrested him on 15.10.2007 to undergo the remaining part of his sentence as ordered by the learned trial court. Therefore, the delay of 598 days be condoned. After going through the averments made in the application as well as the judgment of the Sessions Judge, this Court is of the view that the conduct of the petitioner is highly reprehensible. Even after the grant of bail by the Sessions Judge, the petitioner did not appear in the appeal. Since the appeal was a old one, the learned Sessions Judge in the absence of the petitioner was not left with any other option but to dispose of the appeal on merits. While upholding the order of conviction and sentence, the learned Criminal Revision No.106 of 2008 (4) ***** Sessions Judge directed the learned Magistrate to secure the presence of the petitioner and his co-accused to undergo the remaining sentence of imprisonment. It is not disputed that petitioner and his co-accused are Government employees. The petitioner intentionally did not appear in the court for a period of one year and seven months after the dismissal of his appeal by the learned Sessions Judge. His presence was secured after great efforts made by the police and since then the petitioner is undergoing the sentence awarded by the learned trial court. On the face of it, the grounds stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no force while keeping in view the act and conduct of the petitioner. However, the petitioner is given again a chance to address arguments on the merits of the revision. Learned counsel contended that the trial court as well as the appellate court while appreciating the evidence of the prosecution has relied upon the testimony of complainant Dharam Singh, who had categorically stated that on 2.4.1997, at about 5.00 p.m., while he was standing on the turning of Tehsil Complex, Mukerian, near the main road, he noticed bus No.PB-08J 9780 of the society coming from the side of Talwara Chowk and stopped. Several persons alighted from the bus. In the end, Gian Kaur (since deceased) was in the process of coming down from the front door of the bus, when the conductor blew the whistle and the driver drove the bus upon which Gian Kaur fell down and the rear tyre of the bus passed over her abdomen and thigh. She was seriously injured. The people raised raula and the bus stopped after covering some distance. The complainant asked Conductor to get the lady admitted in Civil Hospital, Mukerian, and he will bring her family members. When he came back, he came to know that Gian Criminal Revision No.106 of 2008 (5) ***** Kaur died in the hospital. According to the complainant, Gian Kaur succumbed to her injuries due to negligence on the part of driver and conductor of the bus. PW3 Mohinder Singh the other eye witness also corroborated the testimony of PW1 Dharam Singh complainant. PW2 Dr.Naresh Kumar, SMO, has conducted the post-mortem of the dead-body on 3.4.1997 at 11.00 a.m. He deposed that the dead-body was brought by Constable Satnam Singh of Police Station, Mukerian. He noticed the injuries on the person of the deceased as detailed in the post-mortem report. The cause of death in his opinion was due to hemorrhage and shock which was sufficient to cause death in an ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were ante- mortem in nature and could be result of road side vehicular accident. He also proved carbon copy of the post-mortem, Ex.P1. PW6 Dr.Shavinder Singh Mathan, SMO, has noticed the injuries on the person of Gian Kaur. He proved the bed head ticket, Ex.PD, intimation regarding admission Ex.PE, and intimation regarding death of Gian Kaur, Ex.PF. He also proved on the record his opinion, Ex.PG. Learned counsel contended that despite of the fact that several persons were present at the spot but the police has not associated any independent witness. So far as PW1 Dharam Singh and PW3 Mohinder Singh are concerned, they were interested in the success of the prosecution version as they are from the village of the deceased. Another contention of the learned counsel that as per the statement of Raj Kapoor petitioner, who appeared as DW1, the deceased has jumped from the bus and she herself is negligent. He did not blow the whistle. According to him, the road was under construction on account of Criminal Revision No.106 of 2008 (6) ***** laying sewerage system and the bus could not run beyond 5 km per hour in speed. Learned counsel submitted that the accused was falsely implicated in this case. He prayed that the petitioner has already undergone three months and, therefore, the order of sentence may be converted into the period already undergone. This court does not find favour with the statement of the learned counsel. These days the vehicular accident on the roads are on the rise and in order to check this tendency of rash and negligent driving at public places so that the human lives cannot be put in danger because the persons committing offence under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC needs to be tackle with heavy hands. Hence, the prayer for reducing the sentence to the period already undergone is hereby declined. No other point was urged before this court. This revision is dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits. 22.1.2008. (R.S.Madan) vs. Judge.