Criminal Revision No.14 of 2002 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.14 of 2002 Decided on : May 19, 2009 Nirbhey Singh ... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Surinder Kapoor, Additional Advocate General Punjab. A.N.JINDAL, J.- Two persons, namely Sukhpal Singh and Harbans Singh were rendered dead in an accident, which allegedly occurred at the hands of the accused – petitioner Nirbhey Singh (herein referred as the petitioner) on 14.2.1998 at 7.30 p.m, when the petitioner struck his bus bearing No.PB-13A-3311 owned by H.S.Dhillon Bus Service, Barnala against their scooter. Consequently, he was tried, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 304-A IPC. Criminal Revision No.14 of 2002 [ 2 ] The facts in brief are that on 14.2.1998 at about 7.30 p.m, Sukhpal Singh and Harbans Singh (both deceased) were going on scooter, whereas, the complainant Darshan Singh (herein referred as the complainant) and Ginder Singh were following them. When they reached one kilometer short of Pakho Ke crossing towards village Ugho Ke, the petitioner while driving the bus rashly and negligently came from the opposite side and struck against the scooter of Sukhpal Singh and Harbans Singh. Resultantly, both suffered injuries. Thereafter, injured Sukhpal Singh was sent to the Civil Hospital, Barnala through Ginder Singh, whereas, Harbans Singh died at the spot. Further, Sukhpal Singh, who had been referred from the Civil Hospital, Barnala to DMC, Ludhiana also died on his way. As such, on the statement (Ex.PL) made by the complainant, the FIR (Ex.PW7/A) was recorded by ASI Swaran Singh. He also prepared the Inquest Reports of Sukhpal Singh and Harbans Singh (Ex.PC and PE, respectively). He conducted the remaining investigation and after completion of the same, challan was presented against the petitioner. The petitioner was charged under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in order to substantiate the charges, examined Dr.Subhash Singal (PW1), who conducted the post mortem on the dead body of Sukhpal Singh, aged 20 years on 15.2.1998 at about 1.45 p.m, and found as many as 11 injuries on his person. He also opined that the injuries were ante mortem in nature and were sufficient Criminal Revision No.14 of 2002 [ 3 ] to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He also conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Harbans Singh on the same day at about 2.00 p.m, and found as many as 5 injuries on his body, which were also found sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Dr.Suresh Kumar, Medical Officer (PW2) sent an information to the police with regard to the admission of Sukhpal Singh. Harbans Singh, mechanic (PW3) is the person, who mechanically examined the vehicles and gave reports Ex.PJ and PK. Jasbir Singh, Photographer (PW4) had taken the photographs, while complainant (PW5) and Ginder Singh (PW6) are the eye witnesses to the occurrence. ASI Swaran Singh (PW7) is the Investigating Officer. In his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner denied all the allegations and pleaded his false implication in the case. However, he was unable to lead evidence in his defence. The trial ended in conviction and his appeal also failed. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. The argument advanced by the counsel for the petitioner is three fold; (i) firstly, there is delay in lodging the First Information Report; (ii) secondly, there is no evidence to the effect that the petitioner was driving the bus in rash or negligent manner, and (iii) thirdly, it is a case of mistaken identity. As regards the one day's delay in lodging the FIR, it may be observed that the complainant was none-else, but the father of Sukhpal Criminal Revision No.14 of 2002 [ 4 ] Singh (deceased). His presence at the time of occurrence is quite natural, as he along Ginder Singh was following the deceased i.e, his son and his companion. Sukhpal Singh and Harbans Singh were ahead of the complainant. The veracity of the statements of the complainant and Ginder Singh was tested by way of lengthy cross-examination, yet no fault could be found with the same, so as to condemn them as unreliable or chance-witnesses. Their presence at the spot was natural and probable. In any case, since Sukhpal Singh had not died at the spot, the priority of his father (complainant) was to save his life, rather than approaching the police. It has come in evidence that after he had come to know that condition of Sukhpal Singh had deteriorated, he went to know his condition, where, he was told that he had died on his way to Ludhiana. Possibly out of agony, which he had been under-going and the time, which was consumed in getting the post mortem conducted of the deceased, he might not have come across the police for making any statement. Any way, the identity of the petitioner is beyond doubt, as both the complainant and Ginder Singh, who had been following the deceased, had seen the petitioner on the wheels, while the bus struck the scooter. Question of mistaken identity does not arise. The complainant (PW5) has stated to the extent that he knew the petitioner earlier. The petitioner as well as the witnesses hailing from the same area, they must be knowing the petitioner since earlier. Thus, a combined reading of the testimonies of both the witnesses (PW5 and Criminal Revision No.14 of 2002 [ 5 ] PW6) leads this court to infer that the identity of the petitioner is duly established at the time of occurrence. As far as the question of rashness or negligence is concerned, despite the testimony made by the complainant (PW5) that the accident took place on account of the fault on the part of the petitioner, the circumstances prevailing over the case prove the rashness or negligence, with which the petitioner had been driving the vehicle. The impact of the accident was so high that both the vehicles were damaged and Sukhpal Singh suffered as many as 11 injuries. The fact that left front side of the bus was broken goes to show that the deceased were at their left side and fault lay with the petitioner. In any case, concurrent findings of fact, returned by both the courts below in the absence of any perversity, cannot be set aside merely on the flimsy grounds. Coming to the quantum of sentence, it is a matter of common experience that day in and day out, these heavy vehicle drivers in utter disregard to the traffic rules and instructions without bothering the value of the precious lives moving in the small vehicles or pedestrians, drive ruthlessly and carelessly rendering thousands of people as dead and lacs of people as injured and disabled, therefore, imparting leniency in such cases would amount to encouraging such people, to have a free hand to drive carelessly, rashly and negligently and removal of fear of punishment in case of violation of traffic rules. To my mind, the sentence already awarded against the petitioner is Criminal Revision No.14 of 2002 [ 6 ] already on the lower side. As such, no justification could be seen for reduction in the sentence. Consequently, finding no merit in the revision petition, the same is dismissed. May 19, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE