Crl. Revision No. 337 of 1993 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 337 of 1993 Date of decision: 19.08.2008 Bakhtaur Singh S/o Jagir Singh ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab ....Respondent. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Ms. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate as Amicus Curiae. Mr. R.S. Rawat, A.A.G, Punjab. A.N.JINDAL J.(ORAL) This petition is directed against the judgment dated 06.05.1993 passed by additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot dismissing the appeal of he petitioner (herein referred as petitioner) against the judgment dated 08.01.1993 convicting the accused under Section 304-A IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I for a period of one year, and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. Essential facts need to be narrated are that on 04.09.1987 at about 2.15 P.M. in the area of city Kotkapura, the petitioner while driving his bus bearing no. PUU 867 of Tej Bus service rashly and negligently struck against the deceased Mohinder Singh killing him at the spot. Case registered against the accused was investigated. He was tried convicted and sentenced in the aforesaid terms. The appeal was also dismissed. Crl. Revision No. 337 of 1993 2 The prosecution in order to substantiate the charges examined Dr. K.K. Aggarwal P.W1, Chanan Ram PW2, Naib Singh PW3, HC Manjit Singh PW4, Harbans Singh Duty Inspector PW5, Mehar Singh steno PW6, HC Narotam Singh PW7 and Ram Kumar DSP PW8. Thereafter, in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the petitioner denied all the allegations and pleaded his innocence. The star witness Chanan Ram PW2 and Naib Singh PW3 are consistent in their statements regarding the time, place and the manner in which the occurrence has taken place Their testimony stands corroborated by the medical evidence. No illegality much less irregularity has been found in the judgment warranting interference by this Court. Having examined the judgments of both the Courts below, I find that the evidence has been appreciated in the right perspective The scope and interference by this Court at the revisional stage is very limited. Even if some other possible view could be formed even then the Court should be hesitant to interference in the judgment at the revisional stage. Now coming to the quantum of sentence keeping in view the galloping trend of driving rashly and negligently by the untrained and illiterate drivers it would not appropriate to extend the benefit of probation to the petitioner. The Apex Court in case B. Nagabhushanam Vs. State of Karnataka, 2008(3) RCR (Criminal) 50 has also discouraged the extending of benefit of probation in the accident cases while observing as under:- “12. We may, in this connection, notice that in Dalbir Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2000(2) RCR(Criminal) 816 : [(2000)5 Crl. Revision No. 337 of 1993 3 SCC 82], this Court opined: 13. 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 304A 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, Crl. Revision No. 337 of 1993 4 particularly at the level of trial courts, for lessening the high rate of motor accidents due to callous driving of automobiles.” 13. In Rattan Singh vs. State of Punjab [(1979) 4 SCC 719], this Court held : “5. 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 rigor of the old rules which are subject to Government discretion.” Keeping in view the facts and circumstance of the present case and the fact he turned the live body of Mohinder Singh into corpse within twinkling of an eye. Had he been little careful, this tragic incident would have not occurred. Therefore, he does not deserve any leniency. Rather the sentence awarded to him appears to be on lower side. Consequently finding no merit in the petition, the same is hereby dismissed. Crl. Revision No. 337 of 1993 5 Amicus Curiae appointed in this case would be entitled to claim his emoluments for assisting this Court as per rules. 19.08.2008 (A.N. JINDAL) Ajay JUDGE