IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Rev. No. 1088 of 2001 Date of Decision: February 19, 2009 Subhash Chander ...........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Anshuman Dalal,Advocate for Mr.J.S.Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, Advocate for the respondents ** Sabina, J. Petitioner-Subhash Chander was convicted for an offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) vide judgment dated 19.12.2000. Vide order of even date, petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1½ years and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- under Section 304-A IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 279 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar vide order dated 12.7.2001. Hence, the present revision petition. The brief facts of the case as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment are as under:- “Prosecution story goes like this that on 7.5.1997, Jagtar Singh complainant alongwith Sant Jagat Ram, Gurnam Singh PW were going on Maruti Car No. PCS-9468 from village Paniali to Guru Crl. Rev. No. 1088 of 2001 -2- Ka Lahore to pay respect. The car was being driven by Baljit Singh son of Sher Singh (since deceased). When the car was about 100 yards from Badhal link road towards Anandpur Sahib, a Haryana Roadways, Chandigarh depot bus being driven by accused Subhash Chand came rashly and negligently and hit the right side of the car. The car was pushed to the back side. Legs of Baljit Singh driver were broken. He also received other injuries. Sant Jagat Ram also received some invisible injuries. However, Jagtar Singh and Gurnam Singh escaped unhurt. The number of the bus was HR-37/1170. It is alleged that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by Subhash Chand Driver. The injured were then removed to civil hospital, Anandpur Sahib. Baljit Singh, driver of the car was serious, therefore, he was referred to PGI Chandigarh. Sant Jagat Ram was unfit to make the statement. Near the hospital, Jagtar Singh complainant met the police party headed by Gurbax singh ASI, who recorded his statement Ex.PB. After making endorsement, same was sent to the police station, where form FIR Ex.PC was registered. Site plan Ex.PD of place of accident was prepared. Photographs of place of accident were taken. The car and bus were taken into possession. The photographs were also lateron taken into possession. The bus and car were got mechanically examined. The inquest report was prepared. Baljit Singh later on succumbed to the injuries on 9.5.1997. The post mortem of the dead body was conducted and after completing the formalities of investigation, challan was presented in the Court”. Crl. Rev. No. 1088 of 2001 -3- Heard counsel for the parties. Complainant-Jagtar Singh while appearing in the witness box as PW2 did not support the prosecution case. Gurnam Singh (PW6) has deposed that on 7.5.1997, he was travelling in car No. PCS-9468 driven by Baljit Singh, deceased. At about 1.30 P.M. when they reached near village Bodhal, a bus bearing No. HR- 37/1170 belonging to Haryana Roadways driven by the petitioner came at a fast speed and struck against their car. As a result of this Baljit Singh, Jagtar Singh suffered injuries. Baljit Singh later succumbed to his injuries. Dr. Irwin Jeet Singh (PW4) has proved the post mortem examination report with regard to the dead body of Baljit Singh. Bus in question was recovered from the spot. A perusal of the photographs reveals that the car was completely damaged from right hand side. Bus had also suffered damage on the front side. Bus in question was mechanically examined and as per the report Exhibit PW7/B, the driver side of the bus was damaged. The brakes of the bus have been damaged/broken due to the accident. The steering and the gear system of the bus was also damaged/broken. Although in the present case, the complainant did not support the prosecution version but accident in question has been duly proved by the eye witness- Gurnam Singh (PW6). The said witness had no enmity against the petitioner to involve him falsely in this case. The plea taken by the petitioner when he was examined under Section 313 Cr. P. C. that he was innocent and had crossed the place of Crl. Rev. No. 1088 of 2001 -4- accident where some other vehicles had caused the accident and he had been stopped by the person present at the spot, appears to be an after thought and fails to inspire confidence. In these circumstances, the Courts below had rightly convicted the petitioner under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was a Government employee and was facing the criminal proceedings since the year 1997. Petitioner was not a previous convict and had a family to support and has prayed that the petitioner be released on probation. The object of releasing an accused on probation is that he may be given an opportunity to reform himself. The benefit of probation can be denied only to hardened criminals or where restrictions have been imposed by Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 . The instant case is of conviction under Section 279 and 304-A IPC. The offences under these Sections are bailable. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is a fit case where the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 can be extended to the petitioner. Petitioner is not a previous convict and was in Government service and has been facing trial since the year 1997. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 279 and 304-A is maintained. However, the sentence of the petitioner as ordered by the Courts below is set aside. Instead of sentencing him to imprisonment, petitioner is ordered to be released on probation for one year subject to his furnishing necessary bonds Crl. Rev. No. 1088 of 2001 -5- in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Rupnagar. Petitioner shall further undertake to appear and receive sentence as and when he is called upon during the period of probation and in the meantime, he should keep peace and be of good behaviour. The fine deposited by the petitioner be treated as the cost of proceedings. This petition is disposed of accordingly. ( Sabina ) Judge February 19, 2009 arya