IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.658 of 2002 Date of Decision: 10.03.2009 Sansar Singh Petitioner Versus State of Punjab Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH Present: Mr.S.S.Randawa, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.A.S.Virk, Addl.A.G. Punjab for the respondent-State …. Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) It was allegation against the petitioner that on 15.2.1989, by driving bus bearing No.PJG-7333, in a rash and negligent manner, he had caused death of Surjit Singh. Vide judgment and order dated 2.4.1997, the petitioner was found guilty for commission of an offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- with a default clause. His appeal was dismissed by the appellate Court on 15.3.2002. Hence, this revision petition. Case of the prosecution, as noticed by the appellate Court below in paragraph No.2 of its judgment, reads thus:- Criminal Revision No. 658 of 2002 2 “Brief facts of the case are that on 15.2.89 ASI Gurdial Singh alongwith other officials was going from the police station Rajpura to village Gandakheri etc. Baldev Singh complainant met him in ‘Tahliwala’ chowk, Rajpura and made a statement Ex.PC that today (15.2.89) at about 6 p.m. he alongwith his brother Surjit Singh was present near Bhadak Petrol Pump after loading the tractor-trolley with cauli-flower. The tractor-trolley was parked on the kacha berm of the road and they were waiting for a vehicle in order to take the load to Chandigarh. In the meantime, Hari Ram came there with a load of bags containing carrots in a cart and parked it near their vehicle for taking the load to Chandigarh. At about 7.30 pm bus PJG-7333 of PRTC depot, Patiala came from the side of Rajpura. Name of its river was revealed as Sansar Singh later on. The bus was being driven rashly and negligently. Firstly it struck against the cart of Hari Ram and then struck against their tractor-trolley, as a result of which the trolley turned on one side and Surjit Singh received injuries. His right thigh got fractured and he also received other injuries. Gurmail Singh also came to the spot and witnessed the occurrence. The injured was taken to Rajendra Hospital, Patiala. An endorsement was made upon it by the ASI and formal FIR was registered on its basis. Bus, tractor-trolley and cart were taken into possession vide memos Exs. PW5/C, PW5/A and PW5/B, respectively. Surjit Singh died in the hospital on the same day.” Criminal Revision No. 658 of 2002 3 The investigating officer prepared the inquest report on the dead body and sent it for post-mortem examination. He also got prepared the rough site plan and recorded statements of the witnesses. The petitioner- accused was arrested on 17.2.1989. After completing investigation, final report was put in Court for trial. The petitioner was charge sheeted for commission of an offence under Section 304-A IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution produced 8 witnesses and also brought on record documentary evidence to prove its case. On conclusion of prosecution’s evidence, statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Incriminating material existing on record was put to him, which he denied, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, he led no evidence in defence. The trial Court on appraisal of evidence found him guilty and accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced as found mentioned in earlier part of this order. He also failed in appeal. Mr.Randhawa, counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the trial Court was not justified in convicting and awarding sentence to the petitioner. He, by making reference to some minor contradictions here and there in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, has tried to assail judgments of the Courts below on merits. He prayed that revision petition be allowed, judgments, under challenge, be set aside and the petitioner be acquitted of the charges framed against him. Prayer made has vehemently been opposed by Mr.Virk. He has supported judgments passed by the Courts below. He further argued that it was a case of eye witness account. How accident had taken place was Criminal Revision No. 658 of 2002 4 disclosed by Hari Ram (PW5). Testimony of above said witness could not be shattered despite lengthy cross-examination by the defence counsel. He prayed that revision, having no substance, be dismissed. After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court feels that in view of evidence on record, it is not possible to interfere on merits. It has come on record that on 15.2.1989, at about 6.00 PM, the petitioner, by driving offending vehicle bearing No.PJG-7333 in rash and negligent manner, had caused accident, in which, Surjit Singh suffered injuries. He was shifted to the hospital, where he died. The trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that oral testimony supported by photographs on record, deposition made by the investigating officer and other witnesses fully proved guilt of the petitioner-accused. Otherwise also, their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. State of H.P., 2008(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 611, has opined that scope to interfere in revision, in judgments passed by the Courts below involving offences under Sections 304-A and 279 IPC, is very limited. Faced with the situation, Mr.Randhawa argued that the accident had taken place in the year 1989. The petitioner continued to face agony of trial before the Courts below and now his revision petition is pending since 2002. In the process, he has suffered mentally and financially as well. He prayed that leniency be shown to the petitioner who, at the relevant time, was working as a driver with the Pepsu Roadways Transport Corporation. He argued that if at this stage, the petitioner is sent behind the bars, not only he, but his entire family will suffer. Criminal Revision No. 658 of 2002 5 Prayer made has vehemently been opposed by the State counsel. He states that these days, it has become a fashion to drive fast and in a careless manner and if leniency is shown to the petitioner, it will give a wrong message to the society and encourage others to commit similar offence (s). He further states that the case against the petitioner was proved on record and as such, he deserves no sympathy. Purpose of criminal law justice system is not only to punish an erring individual but is also to give an opportunity to him to reform himself. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Karamjit Singh versus State(Delhi Admn.), 2001 (9) Supreme Court Cases 161, in paragraph No.7 observed as under:- "Punishment in criminal cases is both punitive and reformative. The purpose is that the person found guilty of committing the offence is made to realise his fault and is deterred from repeating such acts in future. The reformative aspect is meant to enable the person concerned to relent and repent for his action and make himself acceptable to the society as a useful social being. In determining the question of proper punishment in a criminal case, the court has to weigh the degree of culpability of the accused, its effect on others and the desirability of showing any leniency in the matter of punishment in the case. An act of balancing is, what is needed in such case: a balance between the interest of the individual and the concern of the society; weighing the one against the other. Imposing a hard punishment on the accused serves a limited purpose but at the same time, it is to be kept in mind that relevance of deterrent Criminal Revision No. 658 of 2002 6 punishment in matters of serious crimes affecting society should not be undermined. Within the parameters of the law an attempt has to be made to afford an opportunity to the individual to reform himself and lead the life of a normal, useful member of society and make his contribution in that regard. Denying such opportunity to a person who has been found to have committed offence in the facts and circumstances placed on record, would only have a hardening attitude towards his fellow beings and towards society at large. Such a situation, has to be avoided, again within the permissible limits of law." Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon two judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab, 1982 C.A.R. 280(SC) and Aitha Chander Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1982 C.A.R. 5(SC), to contend that petitioner be released on probation. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paul George v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases 185, by taking note of a fact that accident had occurred 20 years earlier, ordered that the convict be released on probation. Keeping in view facts and circumstances of this case and ratio of judgments mentioned above, conviction of the petitioner is upheld, however, sentence of imprisonment awarded to him is set aside and he is ordered to be released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, for a period of six months. By taking note of a fact that due to rash and negligent driving by the petitioner, one valuable human life has lost and also in view of ratio of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Baldev Singh and another v. State of Punjab, AIR 1996 Supreme Court Criminal Revision No. 658 of 2002 7 372 and Manish Jalan v. State of Karnataka, (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 225, fine imposed upon him is enhanced to Rs.50,000/- over and above the fine already imposed by the trial Court. The petitioner is directed to deposit the above said amount, within three months from today, with the trial Court. On deposit so being made, the trial Court shall issue notice to the widow of the deceased and disburse the amount to her forthwith. In case widow is not available, notice be issued to the legal heirs of the deceased and disburse the above said amount to them. It is made clear that in case enhanced amount is not deposited, as directed above, this revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. The petitioner shall also execute bail bonds and file an undertaking before the trial Court that he would act like a disciplined citizen and will not indulge in any crime of the same nature during the period of probation. He is directed to furnish bail bonds and file an undertaking before the trial Court within three months from today. With above mentioned modification, this revision petition stands disposed of. 10.03.2009 (Jasbir Singh) gk Judge