In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 1067 of 2002 Date of decision: 30.04.2009 Dharam Singh ... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab ... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Sandeep Mann, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Simsi Dhir, AAG, Punjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 17.5.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner (herein referred as 'the petitioner') against the judgment dated 17.5.2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kapurthala, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1- ½ years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- under Section 304- A IPC and further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 279 IPC. The brief resume of facts is that on 5.10.1997, at about 9.30 a.m. the complainant Mohan Singh (herein referred as 'the complainant') along with his mother Darshan Kaur was present at Bus stand Bholath to board a bus for going to visit their relatives, in the meanwhile, bus bearing registration No.PB-12-9511 came at the bus stop. Whenn Darshan Kaur and other passengers were still boarding the bus, the petitioner rashly and negligently started the bus and moved it, as a result of which she fell down and received injuries. She was removed to the Civil Hospital, Bholalth. However, due to non availability of the doctor there, she was taken to Joshi Hospital, Jalandhar, where her leg was amputated. On the basis of the aforesaid statement a case was registered and investigated. On 15.10.1997, Darshan Kaur injured died in the hospital and accordingly offence under Section 304-A IPC was added. Completion of the investigation was followed by a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Crl. Revision No. 1067of 2002 -2- The petitioner was charged for the offences under Sections 279/304-A IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. In order to bring home charge, the prosecution examined Rattan Lal (PW1), Mohan Singh (PW2), Paramjit Singh (PW3), Dr. Mukesh Joshi (PW4), Dr. Davinder Banga (PW5), ASI Balkar Singh (PW6), Raj Kumar (PW7), Mohan Lal (PW8) and Mukhtiar Singh (PW9). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the petitioner denied all the allegations and pleaded his false implication. He while admitting having arrived at bus stand Bholath, with bus denied if Darshan Kaur and Mohan Singh (PW2) injured were present at the bus stand. However, he examined Avtar Singh (DW1) and Bhagwan Singh (DW2) in defence. Ultimately, the trial ended in conviction and his appeal also failed. Arguments heard. Record perused. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that no independent witnesses was joined or examined by the prosecution despite the rehri owners and shop keepers remain present at the place of incident. However, I do not find any substance in the said contention because of the admission made by the petitioner that he was driving the bus at the time of accident. The witnesses so examined by the prosecution categorically deposed that the petitioner drove the bus rashly and negligently when Darshan Kumar and Mohan Singh were in the process of boarding the bus. Mohan Singh an eye witness has also reiterated the story set up by the prosecution. As regards delay of ten hours in lodging the FIR, it may be observed that the accident took place on 6.10.1997 at 9.30 a.m. and the first priority was to provide medical aid to the injured. It has come in evidence that the complainant took the injured to the Civil Hospital, Bholath, as no doctor was available there, the injured was shifted to Joshi Hospital, Jalandhar. This fact also stands admitted by Bhagwan Singh (DW2) that after the accident, the complainant immediately took the injured to the hospital. As such, delay if any in lodging the FIR has been duly explained. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the deceased suffered injuries due to her own fault as she was trying to Crl. Revision No. 1067of 2002 -3- board the bus, the door of which was closed. I do not find myself in agreement with the same as it has been specifically deposed by Mohan Singh (PW2) and Paramjit Singh (PW3) that the passengers were boarding the bus when the petitioner started it. Further more, testimony of Avtar Singh (DW1) is not trustworthy as he has stated that in the morning he had gone with the petitioner in the bus and in the evening they had come to know that one old lady suffered injuries in the morning. To the contrary, the prosecution version is that after the accident, the petitioner stopped the bus and ran away and when the police party reached at the place of accident, the bus was lying parked there which was taken into possession. That apart, the prosecution version stands proved from the defence version as Bhagwan Singh (DW2) has categorically deposed that on 6.10.1997, at about 9.20 a.m. he was present at the bus stand in the meantime, the petitioner reached there and stopped his bus for 5-7 minutes and then started it. One old lady who tried to board the bus fell down and received injuries. Mohan Singh complainant (PW2) and Paramjit Singh (PW3) have consistently stated that when the deceased Darshan Kaur was trying to board the bus, the petitioner, all of a sudden started it, as a result of which she suffered injuries and later on she died. As a last resort, leniency on the quantum of sentence has been prayed for by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having considered the aforesaid argument, it is noticed that the petitioner has already undergone about six months of the substantive sentence and that the proceedings are pending against him since long, therefore, the ends of justice would be met if some leniency is extended. For the foregoing reasons, the instant petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to that already undergone by the petitioner. However, he is directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased Darshan Kaur, within three months from today, failing which this petition would be treated as dismissed in toto. Copy of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala for compliance. April 30, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge