Crl. Revision No.2590 of 2004 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2590 OF 2002. DATE OF DECISION : 20-11-2009. Jaswinder Singh. ...... PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab. ..... RESPONDENT CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. B.S.Baath, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.P.S.Mann, Sr.D.A.G, Punjab. *** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 27.11.2004 rendered by the court of Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Gurdaspur vide which it dismissed the appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.11.2002 rendered by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur vide which the accused was held guilty for commission of offences punishable under Sections 279/337/304-A of Indian Penal Code Crl. Revision No.2590 of 2004 -2- (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for offence under Section 279 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- for offence under Section 304-A IPC and in case of default in making the payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for two months and rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for offence under Section 337 IPC. However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Briefly stated, the case of prosecution is that on 22.12.1998 Harbhajan Singh – complainant alongwith Kashmir Singh and Rajinder Singh was going on scooter bearing Registration No. PB-06-5559 from Gurdaspur to village Mallian Fakiran. He was driving the scooter whereas Harbhajan Singh (injured) and Kashmir Singh (deceased) were pillion riders. At about 3.00 PM when he had travelled some distance from Marian Chanan Shah, a bus bearing Registration No. PB06-B- 2026, which was being driven by its driver i.e. Jaswinder Singh – accused in a very rash and negligent manner, came from the side of Dhariwal. The driver of the bus could not control and hit against the scooter being driven by the complainant, despite the fact that he was driving the scooter on extreme left side of the road. Due to the collision, all the occupants of the scooter fell down and sustained injuries. The accident was also witnessed by Balram Singh, who was following the scooter of the complainant. All the injured were shifted to the hospital and however, Kashmir Singh succumbed to injuries on the way. Crl. Revision No.2590 of 2004 -3- 3. On the statement of complainant Ex.PW6/A, First Information Report was registered and investigation was taken in hand. After completion of investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed against the accused, who was charged for offences punishable under Sections 279/337/338/304-A IPC to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to substantiate the allegations against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses. PW1 is Harbhajan Singh – complainant; PW2 is Rajinder Singh, injured; PW3 is Balram Singh eye-witness; PW4 is Chander Mohan, photographer who had taken the photographs of the place of occurrence; PW5 is Manjit Singh, Constable a formal witness; PW6 is Gurmej Singh, ASI i.e. Investigating Officer of this case; PW7 is Vijay Kumar, Head Constable, another formal witness; PW8 is Surinder Mohan Luthra, Stenographer from the office of DTO, Gurdaspur; PW9 is Dr. Vijay Kumar, who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Kashmir Singh; PW10 is Dr. Raj Kumar, who conducted medico- legal examination of the injured; PW11 is Piara Singh, a formal witness; PW12 is Lakhbir Singh, Head Constable-cum-Mechanic; PW13 is Ram Lubhaya, Adda Incharge of M/s Dehati Bus Service, who proved the employment of accused as driver of the bus involved in the accident; PW14 is Darshan Singh, Superintendent from the office of Civil Surgeon, Gurdaspur who proved the bed-head tickets; and PW15 is Kashmir Singh, Reader of the office S.S.P., Gurdaspur. 5. Statement of accused in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. was Crl. Revision No.2590 of 2004 -4- recorded by the learned Trial Court in which he denied the incriminating evidence coming against him and pleaded innocence. However, the revision-petitioner did not lead any evidence in his defence after tendering into evidence a copy of newspaper containing news item regarding this accident. 6. Learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279/337/304-A IPC beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt. Hence he was convicted and sentenced as aforementioned. The appeal filed against the judgment was dismissed by the court of ld. Additional Sessions Judge(Adhoc), Guraspur vide impugned judgment against which the present revision petition has been filed. 7. I have heard Mr. B.S.Baath, learned counsel for the revision-petitioner and Mr. A.P.S.Mann, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Punjab and have gone through the whole record. 8. It is settled principle of law that in its revisional jurisdiction, this Court is not to reappreciate and reappraise the evidence until and unless, it comes to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the trial court are perverse, illegal and erroneous on account of misreading of evidence. The courts below while relying upon the cogent and convincing evidence of prosecution witnesses, were right in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt. 9. Learned counsel for the revision-petitioner has not Crl. Revision No.2590 of 2004 -5- challenged the judgment of conviction passed against the present revision-petitioner by both the courts below. However, it has been contended that the occurrence had taken place on 22.12.1998 and hence, he has been facing criminal proceedings for the last about 11 years and has suffered much agony of protracted trial. He has further contended that he is not a previous convict and hence, it is argued he should be given benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act. On the point he has also placed reliance upon two different judgments delivered by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Manohar Lal v. State of Punjab, 2004(1) RCR(Crl.) 656 and Lakhwinder Dass v. State of Punjab, 2006(1) RCR(Crl.) 825. 10. Law on the point as to whether the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act should be granted to the accused convicted for offence under Section 304-A of IPC has been settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana, 2000(2) RCR(Crl.) 816 by observing that the courts should not as a normal rule, invoke the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act when the accused is convicted of the offence under Section 304-A of IPC in causing death of human beings by rash or negligent driving. Relevant paragraphs No.12 and 13 of the judgment read as under:- “12. In State of Karnataka v. Krishna alias Raju (1987) 1 SCC 538 : (AIR 1987 SC 861 : 1987 Cri LJ 776) this Court did not allow a sentence of fine, imposed on a driver who was convicted under S. 304-A, I.P.C. to remain in force although the High Court too had confirmed the said sentence when an accused was convicted of the offence of Crl. Revision No.2590 of 2004 -6- driving a bus callously and causing death of a human being. In that case this Court enhanced the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for six months besides imposing a fine. 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 S. 304-A, I.P.C. as attracting the benevolent provisions of S. 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, particularly at the level of trial Courts, for lessening the high rate of motor accidents due to callous driving of automobiles.” 11. This judgment was subsequently followed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in B.Nagabhushanam v. State of Karnataka, 2008(3) Crl. Revision No.2590 of 2004 -7- RCR(Crl.) 50 and the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act was denied to the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC. 12. Hence, there is no force in the argument of the learned counsel for the revision-petitioner that he deserves the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act. He has taken a life of an innocent person by driving his bus in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the scooter on which deceased was pillion rider, by taking the bus on the wrong side of the road. Hence, merely on the ground that he is facing trial for the last 11 years, it cannot be said that he deserves the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act. Manohar Lal's case (supra) and Lakhwinder Dass's case (supra) on which reliance has been placed are not of any help to him in view of the authoritative pronouncement by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dalbir Singh's case (supra) followed in B.Nagabhushanam's case (supra) and in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as narrated above. However, taking into consideration the fact that the present revision-petitioner is facing criminal proceedings for the last 11 years and that he is not a previous convict, he deserves some leniency in the matter of sentence. 13. Hence, rigorous imprisonment of two years for offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC imposed by the courts below upon the accused is modified to the extent that the same is reduced to one year while maintaining the remaining sentences. 14. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed being Crl. Revision No.2590 of 2004 -8- devoid of any merit except modification in the quantum of sentence as aforementioned. 15. Bail bond of the revision-petitioner stands cancelled. The concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate shall take necessary steps to comply with the judgment with due promptitude keeping in view the applicability of provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and submit his compliance report within two months. 16. The District and Sessions Judge concerned is also directed to ensure that the directions are complied with and that compliance report is sent within the time limit, to this Court. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) November 20, 2009. JUDGE 'om'