Criminal Revision No.806 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.806 of 2003. Date of Decision : 18.4.2011. Thakar Singh ...... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, DAG, Punjab, for the respondent-State. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) This revision is directed against the judgment dated April 3rd, 2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated February 22nd, 1999 of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jagraon whereby petitioner was convicted under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation. 2. On April 11th, 1994 at about 5.30 p.m Prem Kumar and his mother Maya Wati (both deceased) were going on their scooter from Halwara to Mulanpur, Jagraon. Naresh Kumar (PW-4) and Vipan Kumar (PW-5)-complainant were following them on another scooter. When they reached near Bus Stand, Sidhwan Khurd, a bus of Punjab Road Transport Corporation, Muktsar bearing No. PB-11-E-9585 driven by the petitioner at a fast speed and in a rash and negligent manner came from behind and struck against the scooter. As a result thereof, Prem Kumar and his mother fell down and received multiple injuries. The driver of the bus stopped the bus, alighted from it and revealed his identity. When Naresh Kumar and Vipan Kumar were trying to evacuate deceased to the hospital, the petitioner managed his escape. Both the injured were brought to Criminal Revision No.806 of 2003 2 Government Civil Hospital, Jagraon and from there, they were referred to Dayanand Medical College, Ludhiana where they were admitted by Dr. Arun Nayaar (PW-3). Information was sent to the Police by the Medical Officer. Mohinder Singh, Assistant Sub- Inspector, Police Station Sidhwan (PW-7) reached the hospital and recorded statement of Vipan Kumar (Exhibit PA). On his statement, First Information Report (Exhibit P-3) was registered. The Investigator moved application (Exhibit P-2) seeking opinion as to whether the injured were fit to make statement. The Doctor opined in the negative. Maya Wati and Prem Singh succumbed to their injuries on April 11th and 16th 1994 respectively. The petitioner was arrested on April 13th, 1994. On April 15th, 1994 Mohinder Singh-Inspector PRTC, Faridkot produced the offending bus before Mohinder Singh- Investigator and the same was taken into possession vide recovery memorandum (Exhibit P-7). 3. On completion of the investigation, the accused was charged for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC and as he pleaded not guilty, he was brought to trial. 4. In support of its case, prosecution examined nine witnesses viz. Sohan Singh (PW-1), Dr. S.K. Gupta (PW-2), Dr. Arun Nayyar (PW-3), Naresh Kumar (PW-4), Vipan Kumar (PW-5), Avtar Singh (PW-6), Mohinder Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector (PW-7), Dr. Narinder Nath Sagar (PW-8) and Mohinder Singh-Inspector (PW-9). 5. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied his complicity and pleaded innocence. 6. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is two-fold that (i) the prosecution failed to prove that petitioner was at the wheel of the offending bus at the time of occurrence and as such he deserves acquittal; (ii) the petitioner is driver of Pepsu Road Transport corporation and is going to retire in the month of December, 2011, has already undergone actual sentence of 3 months and 20 days and in view of that the sentence imposed upon him be reduced to the period already undergone. Criminal Revision No.806 of 2003 3 7. The eye witness account has been rendered by Naresh Kumar (PW-4) and Vipan Kumar (PW-5). Both of them have spoken in one voice that on the fateful day, Prem Kumar and Maya Wati were going on their scooter. The offending bus came from behind driven by the petitioner at a high speed and in rash and negligent manner hit the scooter. As a result, both of them fell down and received multiple injuries. The driver of the bus stopped the bus. On being asked, he revealed his identity but when they were managing to transport the victim to the hospital, he managed his escape. Both of them were cross-examined but nothing material could be elicited from their sworn testimony to disbelieve them. They have not only given a description of the occurrence, they have brought home the acts of rashness and negligence on the part of the petitioner. To cap it all, they had no extraneous reasons to depose falsely nor their testimony could be shaken despite searching questions put in the cross-examination. Dr. Arun Nayyar (PW-3) admitted the injured in the DMC hospital. Maya Wati succumbed to her injuries on April 11th, 1994 at 9 p.m. Dr. Narinder Nath Sagar (PW-8), Chief Medical Officer, ESI Dispensary, Ludhiana conducted post-mortem examinations on the dead body of Maya Wati on April 12th, 2011 and proved the post-mortem examination report (Exhibit PW-8/4). He also opined that she died due to haemorrhage and shock on account of receiving multiple injuries which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Prem Kumar succumbed to his injuries on April 16th, 1994. The post-mortem examination on his dead body was conducted by Dr. S.K. Gupta of Civil Hospital, Jagraon (PW-2). He also opined that Prem Kumar died on account of head injury which was sustained in a road accident. From the medical evidence, it is proved that injuries received on the person of the deceased were such as could be suffered in a vehicular accident. 8. As regards the plea that the petitioner was not at the wheel of the offending vehicle, Avtar Singh Duty Clerk, PRTC Muktsar has deposed that on the day of occurrence, the petitioner was driver of the bus. Not only that, petitioner in his statement Criminal Revision No.806 of 2003 4 recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C has not even stated a word that he was not at the wheel on the day of occurrence. Rather, he pleaded his innocence. One cannot lose sight of the fact that had the bus bearing No. PB-11-E-9585 driven by the petitioner not been involved in the accident, question of producing the same by Mohinder Singh Inspector PRTC, Faridkot before the Investigator would not have arisen. In view of this, the argument of the counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was not driving the bus at the time of accident is of no avail. 9. Adverting to the second limb of the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that a lenient view should be taken while imposing the sentence and the sentence be reduced to the period already undergone, whether to take a lenient view in a case under Section 304-A IPC will depend on variety of factors, most importantly the facts and circumstances and degree of rashness or negligence involved in a particular case. 10. Species of crime increase with development. Cyber crime is an example of recent era. The advent of motor vehicles brought with it the crime of road side accident. Increase in the number of vehicles, rashness, negligence and a devil may care attitude of the drivers is taking a heavy toll if the statistics of deaths and bodily injury are considered. A maximum sentence of imprisonment for 2 years was provided under Section 304-A IPC. The situation has now become alarming and there are loud voices from all corners demanding a sterner punishment for the offence and time has come when the agony suffered by victims, their kith and kin and road users in general, has to be given the sympathy and the weight that it genuinely deserves. 11. It will not be out of place to add that leniency in matter of sentence or extending the benefit of release on probation in such cases should not be a rule. Of course, Courts shall be justified in taking a lenient view where strong circumstances so demand. 12. In the case in hand, as many as two precious human lives were tragically cut short by the rash and negligent act of Criminal Revision No.806 of 2003 5 the petitioner. To show leniency to the accused shall be callousness as regards the next of the kin of the victim. 13. In view of what has been stated above, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is repelled. 14. Thus, the impugned judgments do not suffer from any infirmity and are, therefore, upheld. Resultantly, the revision being devoid of merit is dismissed. 15. The petitioner was released on bail by this Court during the pendency of the revision. His bail/surety bonds are cancelled. He be arrested and sent to jail to undergo the remaining part of sentence. Learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jagraon is directed to comply with this order forthwith under intimation to this Court. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 18.4.2011 SN