Crl. Revision No.394 of 2004 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRIMINAL REVISION No. 394 OF 2004. DATE OF DECISION : 3-11-2009. Balbir Singh. ...... PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab. ..... RESPONDENT CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Mohd. Yousaf, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jaspreet Singh, A.A.G., Punjab. *** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 03.01.2004 rendered by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, vide which it dismissed the appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 30.05.2002 rendered by the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patiala, vide which it convicted the present revision-petitioner for offences under Sections 279/304-A of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). However, the sentence of imprisonment for offence under Section 304-A IPC was reduced Crl. Revision No.394 of 2004 -2- from two years R.I. to one year R.I. while maintaining the remaining sentences including the sentence of fine. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 25.09.1997 at about 9.45 AM Daljinder Singh – complainant alongwith his brother Charanjit singh was going on scooter bearing No.PJU-639 owned by friend of brother of complainant for fetching spare parts from Bahera road. When they reached near Baggi Khana turn, a truck bearing No.PB-11-B-6315 came from backside of the scooter, which was being driven at a very fast speed. The driver of the truck could not control and hit against the scooter from backside due to which the complainant fell down on the left side whereas his brother Charanjit singh fell down on the right side of the road and truck passed over the head of the deceased, who succumed to injuries at the spot. His neighbour, namely, Amarjit Singh also witnessed the accident. The truck was stopped by the people present there and the driver told his name as Balbir Singh son of Buta Singh, resident of Dhanori, Police Post Nawangaon, District Patiala. After completion of the investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed against the accused for trial of offences punishable under Sections 279/304-A IPC. He was charged accordingly by the learned Trial Court to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 3. As many as seven witnesses were examined by the prosecution. PW1 is Dr. Harish Tuli, PW2 is P.C. Balkar Singh, PW3 is HC Piara Singh, PW4 is photographer Gurdev Singh, PW5 is eye- witness Amarjit Singh, PW6 is complainant and another eye-witness Crl. Revision No.394 of 2004 -3- Daljinder Singh and PW7 is Karnail Singh, ASI (Investigating Officer of this case). 4. The statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C of the accused was recorded in which he denied the incriminating evidence coming against him and pleaded innocence, however, he did not lead any evidence in his defence. 5. Learned Trial Court convicted the present revision- petitioner for offences under Sections 279/304-A of the Act and sentenced him for the said offences as aforementioned. Accused preferred appeal against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Trial Court before the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, who dismissed the same and hence, present revision petition. 6. I have heard Mr. Mohd. Yousaf, learned counsel for the revision-petitioner and Mr. Jaspreet Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab and have gone through the record carefully. 7. It is settled principle of law that in its revisional jurisdiction, this Court is not to reappreciate and reappraise the evidence until and unless, it comes to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the trial court are perverse, illegal and erroneous on account of misreading of evidence. The courts below while relying upon the cogent and convincing evidence of prosecution witnesses, were right in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt. 8. It is argued by the learned counsel for the revision- Crl. Revision No.394 of 2004 -4- petitioner that the only witness who deposed against the accused is brother of the deceased and that other eye-witness PW5 Amarjit Singh did not support the prosecution version. It is further contended that brother of the deceased was not in a position to see the speed of the truck, which allegedly hit from the backside. It is further contended that damage was caused to headlight and front portion of the scooter and that no damage was caused to the backside of the scooter. It was further argued that the complainant did not receive any injury, which shows that he was not present at the time of accident. 9. On the other hand, it has been argued by the learned Assistant Advocate General for the State that it was a busy area and that hence, accused should have driven the truck by taking extra care and at a slow speed and the very fact that he hit the scooter from behind goes to prove that he was driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner. It is further argued that merely on account of the fact that one of the eye- witnesses has been won over by the accused, it cannot be said that no reliance can be placed on the testimony of the brother of the deceased, who was most natural witness of the accident. Learned AAG, Punjab further contended that the complainant did not receive injury due to the fact that he fell on the other side, which is Kacha one and the deceased fell on the other side, which is Pucca road and was crushed by the truck. 10. Both the courts below have found the deposition of Daljinder Singh – complainant convincing and reliable and the same was also corroborated by the other circumstantial evidence. Hence, his deposition cannot be brushed aside merely on the ground that he is Crl. Revision No.394 of 2004 -5- brother of deceased. It was a busy locality. Hence, the driver of the truck should have taken extra care and should have driven the same at a normal speed keeping the sufficient distance from the scooter going ahead of him. Moreover, PW5 Amarjit Singh has admitted the factum of accident with the truck though he deposed that he reached late and accident had already taken place. Deposition of complainant is fully corroborated by medical evidence as well. By seeing the photographs of the place of occurrence, it is proved that body of Charanjit Singh was lying near the scooter. Number of truck has also been shown in another photograph. Tyres of the truck also caused the blood stains on the road. 11. Hence, no fault can be found with the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court as well as by the learned Appellate Court. 12. So far as the order of sentence is concerned, it was argued by the learned counsel for the revision-petitioner that he has already undergone about three months of imprisonment and that he has been facing agony of trial since 25.09.1997 i.e. for the last about 12 years and hence, it is argued that he should be given benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 or the sentence be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 13. On the other hand, it was argued by the learned Assistant Advocate General for the state of Punjab that the present revision- petitioner has taken away the life of a person by driving the truck in rash and negligent manner and hence, taking into consideration the nature of offence, no interference in the order of sentence passed by the Crl. Revision No.394 of 2004 -6- learned Appellate Court is called for. 14. Law on the point as to whether the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act should be granted to the accused convicted for offence under Section 304-A of IPC, has been settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana, 2000(2) RCR (Crl.) 816 by observing that the courts should not as a normal rule, invoke the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act when the accused is convicted of the offence under Section 304-A of IPC in causing death of human beings by rash or negligent driving. Relevant paragraphs No.12 and 13 of the judgment read as under:- “12. In State of Karnataka v. Krishna alias Raju (1987) 1 SCC 538 : (AIR 1987 SC 861 : 1987 Cri LJ 776) this Court did not allow a sentence of fine, imposed on a driver who was convicted under S. 304-A, I.P.C. to remain in force although the High Court too had confirmed the said sentence when an accused was convicted of the offence of driving a bus callously and causing death of a human being. In that case this Court enhanced the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for six months besides imposing a fine. 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 S. 304-A, I.P.C. as attracting the benevolent provisions of S. 4 of the PO Act. While considering the quantum of sentence, to be imposed for the offence of causing death by rash or 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 afford to Crl. Revision No.394 of 2004 -7- 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.” 15. This judgment was subsequently followed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in B.Nagabhushanam v. State of Karnataka, 2008(3) RCR(Crl.) 50 and the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act was denied to the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC. 16. In the present case, the accused hit the scooter from behind and crushed a scooterist under the wheels of his truck. Learned Appellate Court has already reduced the sentence to one year R.I. and hence, in my view no further reduction in the sentence is called for merely on the ground that the present revision-petitioner is facing trial for the last about 12 years. 17. No other point was urged by the learned counsel for the revision-petitioner. 18. The judgments rendered by the courts below do not suffer Crl. Revision No.394 of 2004 -8- from any illegality and infirmity and the same are liable to be upheld. 19. Hence, for the reasons recorded above, the present revision petition being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. The judgments of conviction and order of sentence are upheld. 20. If the revision-petitioner is on bail, his bail bonds stands cancelled. The concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate shall take necessary steps to comply with the judgment with due promptitude keeping in view the applicability of provisions of Section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure and submit his compliance report within two months. 21. The District and Sessions Judge concerned is also directed to ensure that the directions are complied with and that compliance report is sent within the time limit, to this Court. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) November 3, 2009. JUDGE 'om'