Criminal Revision No.1934 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1934 of 2005 Date of Decision: 08.02.2011. Kuldeep Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. R.S. Sihota, Sr. Advocate with Mr. B.R. Rana, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, D.A.G. Punjab, for the respondent – State. NAWAB SINGH.J (ORAL) Challenge herein is to the judgment dated October 1 st, 2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated February 16 th, 2005 of Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Patiala, whereby, petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under: - Offence Sentence Fine In default 279 IPC RI for 6 months Rs.200/- RI for 10 days 304-A IPC RI for 2 years Rs.500/- RI for 20 days The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Prosecution story is that on May 22 nd, 1998, Manjinder Singh (deceased) was going on his motorcycle from Head Post Officer near Leela Bhawan towards his automobile shop. He was being followed by his sister's son, Jaskirat Singh (PW-1) on a separate motorcycle. When Manjinder Singh reached in front of Gopal Sweets, a four-wheeler bearing registration No. PB-10B-9412 came from Baradari side driven by the petitioner in rash and negligent manner. The four-wheeler struck against the motorcycle of Criminal Revision No.1934 of 2005 2 Manjinder Singh. Manjinder Singh fell down. He received injuries. He was evacuated to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. Dr. Beant Singh, Medical Officer informed telephonically In-charge, Police Post, Model Town, Patiala. Mehar Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector (PW-10) reached the hospital. He moved application (Exhibit PW-10/A) to the Medical Officer as to whether Manjinder Singh was fit to make statement or not. The Medical Officer vide opinion (Exhibit PW-10/A- 1) declared Manjinder Singh unfit to make statement. Mehar Singh- Investigator recorded the statement of Jaskirat Singh (Exhibit PA) who narrated the occurrence, as stated above. On the basis of statement of Jaskirat Singh (PW-1), First Information Report (Exhibit PA/2) was registered in Police Station, Civil Lines, Patiala. Police reached the spot. Scene of occurrence was photographed. Photographs (Exhibits P-1 to P-5) were taken and site plan (Exhibit PW-10/B) was prepared. The four wheeler was taken into possession vide recovery memorandum (Exhibit PC). On May 28 th, 1998, Manjinder Singh succumbed to his injuries. Dr. Harish Tuli (PW-7) conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Manjinder Singh and opined that the injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. 3. On completion of investigation and other formalities, the accused-petitioner was arraigned for trial. 4. In support of its case, prosecution examined Jaskirat Singh (PW-1), Head Constable Jagir Singh (PW-2), Head Constable Kulwant Singh (PW-3), Head Constable Piara Singh (PW- 4), Subhash Chand (PW-5), Dr. Beant Singh (PW-6), Dr. Harish Tuli (PW-7), Ashok Kumar (PW-8), Gurmit Singh (PW-9) and Mehar Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector (PW-10). 5. In his examination recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied his complicity. 6. The first submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the place of occurrence is one of the busiest place in Patiala City as is evident from the statements of Jaskirat Singh (PW- 1) and Mehar Singh-Investigator (PW-10) coupled with the site plan Criminal Revision No.1934 of 2005 3 (Exhibit PW-10/B) so, question of driving the four wheeler at a high speed did not arise. The vehicles move at a snail pace so, chances of rash and negligent driving also are very dismal. 7. The second submission is that the petitioner be released on probation on the grounds that, (i) the accident took place in the year 1998, that is, 13 years ago; (ii) prior to registration of the present case and thereafter, petitioner has not been named in any criminal case; (iii) after registration of the case, the petitioner was appointed as driver in Punjab Roadways, Ludhiana and if his conviction and sentence are maintained, he would lose job benefits; (iv) he is the only bread winner of his family and; (v) the petitioner has already undergone actual sentence of 2 months and 20 days. To support the contention, reliance has been placed on (i) Bahadur Singh vs. State of Punjab 2000(1) RCR (Criminal) 104; (ii) Ashutosh Kumar Manoj vs. State of Bihar 2002(2) Crimes 96; (iii) Jagir Singh and others vs. State of Punjab 2003(2) AICLR 865; (iv) Sita Ram Paswan & another vs. State of Bihar 2005(4) RCR (Criminal) 138; (v) Jagir Singh vs. State of Punjab 2008(2) AICLR 564 and; (vi) Krishan vs. State of Hayrana 2010(1) RCR (Criminal) 44. In all the judgments of this Court, petitioner, who was driver of the offending vehicle, was released on probation. 8. Learned counsel also placed reliance upon Rajbir vs. State of Haryana 1985 AIR (SC) 1278, wherein the accused was in Government Service. Though, it was a case of hurt, Hon'ble the Supreme Court released him on probation, primarily on the ground that he was in Government Service and if the conviction and sentence are maintained, he would lose his service. 9. Jaskirat Singh (PW-1) and Mehar Singh (PW-10) have testified that the accident took place in the bazar. Mehar Singh has further stated that since it was the main market of Patiala so, question of driving the four wheeler at a fast speed in a rash and negligent manner by anybody did not arise. The scene of occurrence has also been depicted in the site plan. Occurrence took place when the petitioner took turn from the side of 22 number Phatak (Railway Criminal Revision No.1934 of 2005 4 crossing barrier). 10. There are drivers who drive recklessly even in congested and busy places. If the argument advanced was to prevail it will mean that if the accident takes place in a busy bazar, the driver of the vehicle involved cannot be guilty of rashness or negligence. That will not only be illogical but a travesty. The argument is, therefore, not tenable. The conviction is, therefore, maintained. 11. Coming to the request that the petitioner be released on probation of good conduct, this Court finds merit in it. The occurrence took place in the year 1998. Petitioner underwent sentence for 2 months and 20 days. He is the only bread earner of his family. He is now an employee of Punjab Roadways and will lose his job if sentenced to imprisonment. In view of these circumstances and the catena of law cited, the request of the petitioner is accepted. It is, therefore, ordered that instead of being sentenced to any punishment, he be released on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 provided that he enters into bonds in the sum of ` 10,000/- for a period of 1 year to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala. He shall receive the sentence if and when called by the Court during the said period and shall maintain the peace and be of good behaviour in the meantime. 12. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 08.02.2011 SN