IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.370 of 2000 Date of decision: April 01, 2010 Lachhamn .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Namit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Malhotra, Addl. A.G. Haryana for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J The petitioner Lachhman has assailed his conviction recorded against him by the two courts i.e. judgment dated 16.11.1995 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat as well as dated 1.2.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, whereby he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 337 IPC and one year under Section 304-A IPC. The case relates to the alleged rash and negligent driving by the petitioner, as a result of which complainant Rishi Parkash suffered injuries, whereas, his brother Subhash Chand died and damage was caused to their tampoo bearing registration No.HRX 5420. On 24.2.1988, Subhash Chander along with complainant Rishi Parkash while driving tampoo bearing registration No.HYX 5420, were returning to their home. When they reached near National Fertilizer Limited Colony, Panipat, in the meantime, the accused while driving truck bearing registration No.DBL 4239 rashly and negligently, in an effort to overtake another on going truck in front of him brought the truck on the wrong side and struck its rear portion in the tampoo of Subhash, as a result of which the tampoo was got damaged. The complainant as well as his brother Subhash suffered injuries. In the meantime, Beli Ram also reached there and he helped the complainant. Subhash taken out from the tampoo and was shifted to Civil Hospital, Panipat where he expired. On the aforesaid statement made by the complainant Rishi Parkash, before ASI Yad Ram, in the Civil Criminal Revision No.370 of 2000 -2- *** Hospital, Panipat, on 25.2.1988 at 8.00 a.m. a ruqa was sent on the basis of which FIR was recorded. ASI Yad Ram went to the spot, prepared the rough site plan Ex.PW8/B of the place of accident, tampoo in question was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PC. The truck was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PD. Registration certificate and driving licence of the accused were also taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW8/C. After recording statements of the witnesses and collecting the postmortem report, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted against the accused. The accused was charged under Sections 279/337/304-A IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to support the case, the prosecution examined Rishi Parkash (PW1), Beli Ram (PW2), Jagdish Chand (PW3), Dr. R.S. Dahiya (PW4), Dr. A.K. Garg (PW5), Surinder Mohan Motor Mechanic (PW6), Sunil Datt Photographer (PW7) and ASI Yad Ram (PW8). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in the case. The trial ended in conviction. His appeal was also dismissed. Arguments heard. Record perused. Learned counsel has multi-fold contentions viz-a-viz the negligence does not stand proved; there is 12 hours delay in lodging the FIR; and identity of the accused is doubtful. Undisputedly, the accident had taken place on 24.2.1988 at 8.00 p.m. Rishi Parkash complainant himself was the injured and he was also to take care of his brother Subhash, who had also died later on. The anxiety of the complainant was to get himself treated as well as to take care of his brother, therefore, obviously some delay was bound to occur in lodging the information with the police. On receipt of ruqa, Yad Ram ASI had visited the hospital on 25.2.1988 at 8.00 a.m. and completed the statement of the complainant at 8.50 a.m. The ruqa reveals that it reached the police station at 12.05 p.m on 25.2.1988. Thus, this minor delay was bound to occur in lodging the FIR and same stands amply explained. Criminal Revision No.370 of 2000 -3- *** As regards the question of identity, there are definite statement of two witnesses namely Rishi Parkash and Beli Ram that it was the accused who was driving the truck rashly and negligently and struck against the tampoo of Subhash Chand while overtaking on going vehicle. He had noticed the accused coming from the front side at high speed and striking against the tampoo. Both the witnesses have withstood the test of cross examination. They duly identified the accused in the court. Since the truck driven by the accused was also damaged and he after stopping the truck also came near the injured to see the impact, therefore, they had the opportunity and occasion to see him. Further more, the truck was also taken into possession at the spot. Even during cross examination of the complainant, the accused has not denied the accident, rather it has been alleged that the accident took place as a result of the fault on the part of the deceased. Both the courts below after appreciating the evidence on record have arrived at the findings of fact that the accused was driving the the truck rashly and negligently and struck against the tampoo. Thus, the question of mistaken identity does not arise. Now coming to the question of negligence, if the scenario is enacted which probably may have taken place, a vehicle was going in front of the offending truck and the tampoo driven by the deceased was coming in front of him. The accused without caring about the on coming vehicle, took his truck and when he saw the tampoo driven by the deceased in front of him, then he could not control the truck and took it off the road striking rear side of the truck into tampoo. As such, the circumstances speak for themselves that the accused was at fault. His truck had also turned turtle. The photographs Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 taken at the spot, regarding the situation of both the vehicles also establish that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused. As regards the quantum of sentence, it has been often seen that the day in and day out, number of road side accidents are alarmingly on the rise. Thousands of people come under the spate of rash driving of the vehicles by the untrained, unqualified and illiterate drivers. Some times no trace of the offender is found and the crime goes unattended and unpunished. Sometimes the people after fleeing from the scene of crime come with variety of defences including identification. These are the rare Criminal Revision No.370 of 2000 -4- *** cases where witnesses dare to say and identify the drivers causing mass- killings and devastation. On account of accidents thousands of families lose their bread, become helpless and live at the mercy of others. As such, these unscrupulous elements indulging in the rash driving need to be strictly criticized. To deal with such people with leniency is likely to send wrong signals to the society and amounts to travesty of justice. Valuable lives are turned into corpus in the twinkling of an eye for the fault on the part of the negligent persons sitting on the wheels. As such I do not deem it a fit case where some leniency could be extended to him. Consequently, finding no merit in the revision petition the same is dismissed. April 01, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge