Crl. Revn. No. 968 of 1996 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Revn. No. 968 of 1996 Date of Decision : July 17, 2009 Ramesh Kumar .... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. A. S. Virk, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sidharth Sarup, AAG, Haryana. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Ramesh Kumar has filed this revision petition challenging his conviction and sentence recorded by both the courts below. According to the prosecution case, on 06.07.1992, complainant Ram Chander along with his mother Yashoda Devi were going to Dehradun to meet the complainant's sister. They were present at Bus Stand Gurgaon on Delhi booth, where Bus No. HR-26-A-1164 was parked. Complainant's mother started boarding the bus from front window, but the petitioner, who was driver of the bus, suddenly started driving the bus and resultantly, complainant's mother fell down. The complainant requested bus driver to stop the bus, but the driver sped away the bus. As a result of accident, both Crl. Revn. No. 968 of 1996 2 legs of complainant's mother were run over by the bus under the rear wheel and she succumbed to her injuries in the hospital. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon vide judgment dated 04.09.1995, convicted the petitioner under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC) and vide order dated 05.09.1995, sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for offence under Section 304-A IPC and also sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days for offence under Section 279 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Appeal preferred by the petitioner stands dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Gurgaon vide judgment dated 29.11.1996. Feeling still aggrieved, the instant revision petition has been preferred by the convict. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Complainant Ram Chander and his brother-in-law Ramesh Chand both eye-witnesses broadly supported the prosecution case. Other evidence was also led by the prosecution. Both the courts below have recorded concurrent finding of guilt of the petitioner on appreciation of evidence. The said finding cannot be said to be perverse or illegal so as to warrant interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that identity of the petitioner as driver of the offending bus at the time of accident is not established. Name of the petitioner as driver was disclosed to the police by PW Ramesh Chand. However, in the witness-box, Ramesh Chand stated that he could not identify the bus driver. On the other hand, Crl. Revn. No. 968 of 1996 3 Ram Chander complainant specifically identified the petitioner in the Court to be the driver of the offending bus at the time of accident. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the said identification in the Court is no identification in the eyes of law because no test identification parade was held. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on various judgments namely – a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rameshwar Singh vs. State of J. and K. reported as AIR 1972 Supreme Court 102 (1), a judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Rattan Baxi vs. The State reported as 1998 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 108, a judgment of this Court in the case of Sunder @ Suinder vs. State of Haryana reported as 1999 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 554 and another judgment of this Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Balraj Singh reported as 2000 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 822. On the other hand, learned State counsel contended that statement of Ram Chander establishes the identity of the petitioner as driver of the offending bus. Relying on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahabir vs. State of Delhi reported as 2008 (3) Recent Criminal Reports 5, it was contended by learned State counsel that identification of the accused in Court for the first time cannot be said to be inadmissible in evidence. Decision on identity of the accused is given on the basis of facts and evidence of each case. In the instant case, the identity of the petitioner as driver of the offending bus is fully proved from the testimony of Ram Chander complainant. The complainant had no enmity with the petitioner. There is no reason why he would falsely identify the petitioner in the Court. In the case of Rattan Baxi (supra), the bus, after causing the accident, was sped away without stopping at the spot. In addition to it, the witness admitted in cross-examination that he could not identify the bus Crl. Revn. No. 968 of 1996 4 driver at the spot. Consequently, it was held that the witness could not have, therefore, identified the driver in the Court, if he had not identified the driver at the spot. In the case of Balraj Singh (supra), there were other infirmities also in the prosecution evidence. Name of the accused being the driver of the offending truck was supplied to the police by the conductor. However, the said conductor, who also slipped away from the spot, was not located by the police, nor his statement was recorded. Moreover, that was a case of appeal against acquittal, when the Court is slow to interfere with the judgment of acquittal. The case of Rameshwar Singh (supra) was a case under Sections 302 and 307 IPC and therefore, the question of identity of accused involved in the said case cannot be said to be similar to identity of the offending driver in the instant case of accident. In the case of Sunder @ Suinder (supra) also, the petitioner was acquitted on the basis of evidence in that case regarding identity. In the instant case, it is very significant to notice that the bus was already present at the Bus Stand in stationary condition and therefore, the complainant had ample time to see its driver and could therefore, identify the bus driver in the Court. On facts and evidence in the instant case, it cannot be said that identity of the petitioner as driver of the offending bus is not established. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that specific questions were not put to the petitioner in his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short – Cr.P.C.) and therefore, the conviction cannot be sustained. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Lattu Mahto and another vs. The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) reported as 2008 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 467 and also a judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Dhan vs. State of Haryana reported as 1974 C.L.R. (Vol.II) 47. This contention is also untenable. No prejudice is shown to have been caused to the petitioner merely because Crl. Revn. No. 968 of 1996 5 main incriminating evidence was put to him in a single question in examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In the absence of prejudice, no benefit can be extended to the petitioner in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. In view of the aforesaid, I find no illegality or infirmity in the judgments of the courts below regarding conviction of the petitioner so as to warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Conviction of the petitioner is accordingly affirmed. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that accident took place 17 years ago and therefore, sentence warrants reduction or the petitioner may be released on probation. I have carefully considered the contention. Benefit of probation cannot be extended to the petitioner as he caused death of a woman by his rash and negligent act. Moreover, after causing the accident, the petitioner sped away the bus and therefore, his conduct was callous. However, keeping in view the fact that the accident occurred 17 years ago, there is some scope for reduction in sentence. Accordingly, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year for offence under Section 304-A IPC is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for nine months while maintaining the sentence of fine and sentence in default thereof for the said offence as well as while maintaining the sentence under Section 279 IPC. With reduction in sentence as aforesaid, the revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. The petitioner, who is on bail, shall surrender to his bail bonds or shall be arrested to undergo the remaining period of sentence. July 17, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE