CRR No. 1055 OF 2002 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No. 1055 OF 2002 Date of decision: 09.03.2009 Jagdish Ram ……Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab …..Respondent Before: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr. S.S.Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Simsi Dheer, AAG,Punjab A.N.JINDAL, J Jagdish Ram-petitioner has assailed judgment dated 11.05.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar dismissing the appeal against the judgment dated 24.08.2001 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phillaur, convicting and sentencing the petitioner accused (herein referred as 'the petitioner') for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 304-A IPC and rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 338 IPC. However, in appeal the conviction and sentence under Section 338 IPC was set aside whereas conviction and sentence under Section 304-A IPC was confirmed. The allegations in brief are that on 26.12.1997 at about 5:30 p.m Tehal Singh(deceased) and Lakhwinder Singh were going on a scooter towards village Kandola. The complainant was behind their scooter on his bicycle. In the meanwhile, an oil tanker came from the front side driven by the petitioner rashly and negligently and hit the scooterists going on the correct side, as a sequel of which the scooterists fell down and suffered injuries. The petitioner came down after stopping the tanker and after coming to know that the scooterists had suffered serious injuries, fled away alongwith the tanker. Tehal Singh died at the spot while Lakhwinder Singh received serious injuries. The complainant had noted the number of the tanker PB07-2086 and had identified the petitioner. On the statement of Mangat Singh-complainant, case was CRR No. 1055 OF 2002 [2] registered and investigated. Ultimately the petitioner was challaned. During the trial, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses. The accused denied all the allegations during his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and did not lead any evidence in defence. Ultimately the trial ended in conviction. In appeal conviction and sentence under Section 338 IPC was set aside whereas conviction under Section 304-A IPC was confirmed. Arguments heard, While scrutinising the trial court and appellate court judgments, no illegality in the procedure and no irregularity in the conduct of the trial surfaces. It transpires that both the courts have consistently taken the view that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner as a result of which Tehal Singh died and Lakhwinder Singh suffered injuries. The identity of the petitioner cannot be disputed as Mangat Singh(PW-2) has categorically stated that he was going to village Shadipur, Tehsil Phillaur on bi-cycle whereas Tehal Singh and Lakhwinder Singh while going on scooter crossed him near the shop of Billa Tyres. In the meantime, the petitioner while driving the tanker rashly and negligently came from the opposite side and struck against the scooterists resultantly, the scooter got smashed, whereas Tehal Singh and Lakhwinder Singh suffered injuries. His testimony qua the rash and negligent act finds support from Satnam Singh(PW-4). Similarly Lakhwinder Singh(PW-5) an injured eye-witness has also given complete narration of facts. These witness have not merely spoken of rashness but they have deposed about his negligence also. As they have also deposed that Tehal Singh was going on his left side when the tanker hit them while coming from the opposite side. Satnam Singh had duly identified the petitioner at the spot and he also identified in the Court. One witness Sadhu Singh(PW-6) while appearing in the witness box has deposed that when he was a head of Railway Station, tanker in question had crossed him and was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. Thus, identification of the petitioner is established on the record. Since the accused was identified and named by the witnesses at the spot and was identified in the Court therefore, the question of mistaken identity does not arise and the issue of test identification parade pales into insignificance. This contention that the petitioner could not be identified due to CRR No. 1055 OF 2002 [3] darkness, can't accepted because it was still not so dark at 5:30 p.m in the last week of December. Moreover no such suggestion has been given to any of the prosecution witnesses that it was dark and due to darkness, they could not identify the driver of the tanker. No other point has been raised. Keeping in view the galloping trend in the vehicular accidents due to the fault on the part of careless, untrained and unscrupulous drivers, the granting of benefit of probation would amount to condoning their illegal acts and encouraging them to repeat such offences in future. As such no leniency could be extended on the quantum of sentence. The petitioner appears to have already awarded the lesser sentence in comparison to the gravity of the offence. In view of the above discussion, finding no merit in the petition, the same is hereby dismissed. Copy of the judgment be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar, for compliance. [A.N.JINDAL] JUDGE 9th March, 2009 SKaushik