Criminal Revision No.185 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.185 of 2006 Decided on 31 .8.2012. Darshan Singh ... Petitioner versus State of Punjab .... Respondent 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.C.PURI Present :- Shri Kuldeep V Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Chandumajra, DAG, Punjab. K.C.PURI, J. Challenge in this revision petition is the judgment and order dated 14.1.2006 passed by Shri Gurdial Singh Sandhu, Additional Sessions Judge, ( Adhoc ) Fast Track Court, Bathinda vide which the appeal preferred by accused/petitioner against the judgment and order dated 22.11.2005 passed by Mr. Rajiv Malhotra, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda was dismissed while reducing the sentence imposed under Section 304-A, IPC to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year Criminal Revision No.185 of 2006 2 instead of rigorous imprisonment for two years, as awarded by the trial Court. However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Briefly stated law was set in motion by recording the statement of Ram Chand, who has stated that on 9.9.2001 at about 4.00p.m, he along with his two nephews Deepak and Vikas Kumar were returning on one cycle, after seeing Movie in Harchand Theater, Bathinda and were ahead of him. Therefore, he was following them on his own cycle. When they reached near Srover Mandir, a truck bearing registration No. PB-03H-6893 came from the back side being driven by accused Darshan Singh rashly and negligently and at a high speed. After crossing complainant Ram Chand, truck hit against the cycle of his nephews. His nephew Deepak Kumar died at the spot whereas Vikas Kumar received injuries. Vikas Kumar was brought to hospital. Truck stopped at some distance from the place of occurrence. On the statement of the complainant, FIR was registered. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. Accused was arrested. After completion of the investigation, challan was presented against the accused. 3. On appearance of the accused copies of the documents as relied upon by the prosecution were supplied to the accused free of costs. Accused was charge sheeted under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. Prosecution, in order to substantiate its case, examined Dr. L.R.Jain (PW-1), Dr. Sushil Gupta (PW-2), Constable Harinder Singh (PW-3), Complainant Ram Chand (PW-4), Injured Vikas Kumar (PW-5), ASI Mohri Lal (PW-6), Lal Chand Clerk, DTO Office (PW-7) and closed Criminal Revision No.185 of 2006 3 the prosecution evidence. 5. Accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he denied all the allegations of the prosecution and claimed to be innocent. He was called upon to lead his defence evidence but he did not led any evidence in defence. 6. The learned trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on the file vide judgment and order dated 22.11.2005 convicted accused under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the IPC and sentenced him as under : - Offence under Sentence Sections 279 IPC R.I. for six months and to pay Rs.300/- as fine and in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for fifteen days. 337 IPC R.I. for three months and to pay Rs.200/- as fine and in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for fifteen days. 304-A IPC R.I. for two years and to pay Rs.500/- as fine and in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for three months. 7. All the sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently. 8. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order dated 22.11.2005 passed by Mr. Rajiv Malhotra, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda, Darshan Singh-accused had preferred first appeal before learned Sessions Judge, Bathinda. Vide judgment dated 14.1.2006 passed by Shri Gurdial Singh Sandhu, Additional Sessions Judge, (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Bathinda the said appeal was dismissed while reducing the sentence imposed under Section 304-A, IPC only to rigorous Criminal Revision No.185 of 2006 4 imprisonment for one year instead of rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. However, all the remaining sentences and that of fine were remained as it is. However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 9. Still feeling dissatisfied with judgments dated 22.11.2005 and dated 14.01.2006, as aforesaid, the petitioner has preferred the present criminal revision petition. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case with their able assistance. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that prosecution has not been able to prove the fact that the revisionist was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. No test identification was conducted to establish the fact that petitioner was driving the offending vehicle at the time of alleged accident. According to complainant Ram Chand ( PW-4 ), petitioner ran away from the place of occurrence. So, identification is not proved. 12. I have considered the said submission but do not find any force in that submission. 13. Name of the petitioner is mentioned in the FIR itself. The complainant as well as another injured eye witness Vikas have stated that petitioner was driving the vehicle and he disclosed his name at the spot and thereafter he ran away. He was identified in the Court also. So, it cannot be said that there is chances of mis-identification of petitioner. Otherwise also there is definite conclusion drawn by both the Courts below regarding guilt of the accused. Criminal Revision No.185 of 2006 5 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that occurrence relates to the year 2001 and appellant is facing trial for the last eleven years. He is the only bread winner of the family and submitted that in case this Court is not inclined for acquittal of the accused/petitioner, in that case, in view of authorities Bhupinder Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in 2006 (1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 725, Ram Pal vs. State of Punjab reported in 2006(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 784, Mann Parkash vs. State of Haryana 1996(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 437 and Baljit Singh vs. State of Punjab 1995(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 361, the petitioner be allowed concession of probation under Section 360 and 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 15. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the authorities referred to above. 16. The ratio of the authorities mentioned above is that in a appropriate case under Section 304-A, IPC probation can be granted depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. However, Hon'ble Apex Court has depreciated the relief of probation under Section 304-A, IPC except in a very exceptional circumstance. The reasoning given by the Apex Court is that the accidents are increasing on alarming rate posing danger to the lives of the public. It has been observed in some of the rulings that nobody knows that whether he will return safe in the house in view of alarming increase in the road accidents. Hon'ble the Apex Court in case Rattan Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1980 Supreme Court page 84 held as under :- Criminal Revision No.185 of 2006 6 “Nevertheless, sentencing must have a policy of correction. This driver, if he has to become a good driver, must have a better training in traffic laws and moral responsibility, with special reference to the potential injury to human life and limb. Punishment in this area must, therefore, be accompanied by these components. The State, we hope, will attach a course for better driving together with a livelier sense of responsibility, when the punishment is for driving offences. May be, the State may consider, in cases of men with poor families, occasional parole and reformatory courses on appropriate application, without the rigour of the old rules which are subject to Government discretion. 6. The victimization of the family of the convict may well be a reality and is regrettable. It is a weakness of our jurisprudence that the victims of the crime and the distress of the dependents of the prisoner, do not attract the attention of the law. Indeed, victim reparation is still the vanishing point of our criminal law. This is a deficiency in the system which must be rectified by the Legislature. We can only draw attention in this matter. Hopefully, the welfare State will bestow better thought and action to traffic justice in the light of the observations we have made. We dismiss the special leave petition.” 17. The Hon'ble Apex Court again in authority in case Dalbir Criminal Revision No.185 of 2006 7 Singh Versus State of Haryana, reported in 2000(2) RCR (Criminal) 816 has held as under :- “Bearing in mind the galloping trend in road accidents in India and the devastating consequences visiting the victims and their families, criminal Courts cannot treat the nature of the offence under Section 304-A IPC as attracting the benevolent provisions of Section 4 of the PO Act. While considering the quantum of sentence, to be imposed for the offence of causing death by rash or negligent driving of automobiles, one of the prime considerations should be deterrence. A professional driver pedals the accelerator of the automobile almost throughout his working hours. He must constantly inform himself that he cannot afford to have a single moment of laxity or inattentiveness when his leg is on the pedal of a vehicle in locomotion. He cannot and should not take a chance thinking that a rash driving need not necessarily cause any accident ; or even if any accident occurs it need not necessarily result in the death of any human being ; or even if such death ensues he might not be convicted of the offence; and lastly that even if he is convicted he would be dealt with leniently by the Court. He must always keep in his mind the fear psyche that if he is convicted of the offence for causing death of a human being due to his callous driving of vehicle, he cannot escape from jail sentence. This is the role which the Courts can play, Criminal Revision No.185 of 2006 8 particularly at the level of trial Courts for lessening the high rate of motor accidents due to callous driving of automobiles.” 18. Our own High Court in authority reported in State (U.T. Chandigarh ) 1999 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal ) 261 has held as under :- “The human life is not so cheap that it can be bartered away by the subordinate courts on unsustainable reasons. Day in and day out we find that the lives of innocent persons who have equal right to utilize the roads are taken away at the hands of the persons who are not trained in the art of good driving. Such traffic violations are at an alarming speed. Before granting the probation by the lower courts, a good amount of premises has to be built before resorting these provisions. Of course, awarding of punishment is in the discretion of the court, but this discretion has to be exercised according to judicial principles. Even in the impugned order, a compensation of Rs.5,000/- which has been awarded to the next of kin of the deceased cannot be said to have given solace to the family of the deceased.” 19. Again this Court in authority in case Mohan Singh Versus State of U.T. Chandigarh 1999 (2) All India Criminal Law Reporter 411 has held as under :- “Faced with this position, learned counsel for Mohan Singh and Chhotu submitted that accident took place in the year 1990. They remained in trial before the learned Magistrate for 5 years Criminal Revision No.185 of 2006 9 where they were convicted and sentenced. They went in appeal to the Court of Session in the year 1995 which unfortunately was dismissed in 1999. They thus remained in appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, for about 4 years. They have thus been suffering the vagaries of this criminal trial for the last 9 years. During this period of 9 years, criminal trial has been hanging on their head like a damoclean sword. It was submitted that they should be released on probation of good conduct. Suffice it to say, they cannot be released on probation of good conduct as they were going on busy high way. While going on a busy high-way drivers of heavy vehicles should be extra-careful, cautious and circumspect. Rash and negligent driving of the trucks by them resulted in loss of one human life and injuries to others. Release on probation of good conduct is sometimes taken as let off and not in the spirit in which the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 was enacted and Sections 360/361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were incorporated.” 20. In authority in case State of Karnataka v. Krishna alias Raju, AIR 1987 Supreme Court 861, the Hon'ble Apex Court deprecated the conduct of the trial Court in sending the accused with a small amount of fine only. 21. So, in these circumstances, keeping in view the authorities of Hon'ble Apex Court, referred to above, no case is made out for grant of probation to the accused/petitioner. Criminal Revision No.185 of 2006 10 18. However, in latest authority of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab vs. Balwinder Singh 2012(1) RCR (Criminal) page 425, awarded the sentence of six months and fine of Rs.5000/- in a case for offence under Section 304-A, IPC. In the present case, appellant is suffering agony for the last more than eleven years. 19. So, in view of authority State of Punjab vs. Balwinder Singh's case (supra) sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner by learned Additional Sessions Judge, stands reduced to six months instead of one year, as awarded by Shri Gurdial Singh Sandhu, Additional Sessions Judge, ( Adhoc ) Fast Track Court, Bathinda However, the sentence of fine stands affirmed. 19. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. 20. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. ( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE August 31 , 2012 sv