Criminal Revision No. 639 of 1997 [1] In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No. 639 of 1997 (O&M) Date of decision : 7.8.2009 Gurbachan Singh ..... Petitioner vs State of Punjab ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. H. S. Gill, Senior Advocate with Mr. K. V. S. Mann, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Mehar Deep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J. The accused is before this court challenging his conviction under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC. Briefly the facts as noticed by the learned court below are that the petitioner after being challaned, faced trial for offences under Sections 279, 337, 304-A IPC in FIR No. 50 dated 20.8.1993 at Police Station Kotwali Faridkot. After trial, considering the fact that in the accident three persons had expired, the petitioner was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 279 IPC with a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 months, under Section 337 IPC he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1½ months, and under Section 304-A IPC, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot, vide judgment dated 25.8.1995. Against the judgment of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot, the petitioner preferred appeal which was dismissed vide judgment dated 12.7.1997. It is now the petitioner is before this court. The story set up by the prosecution is that the petitioner was a driver on a Punjab Roadways Bus bearing registration no. PJG-3117. After completing his trip from Moga to Faridkot, he was taking the bus back from Faridkot City to Moga, at about 11.30 A.M. near railway crossing had to turn the bus on one side as suddenly one scooter being driven by Prem Chand bearing registration no. PAR 5258 came on the main road from court complex side and entered Talwandi Road. Criminal Revision No. 639 of 1997 [2] The bus turned to its right running over Prabh Dayal, Kanta and their infant Kukki , who expired at the spot. The occurrence was witnessed by Balbir Singh and Nazar Singh. After completion of investigation, challan against the petitioner was presented. He was charged for offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as eleven witnesses. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the petitioner stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of Bachittar Singh, Duty Inspector. In defence, two witnesses were examined. Considering the unimpeachable evidence on record in the form of statements of eye witnesses, learned trial Court opined that the charges against the petitioner were proved beyond doubt and, accordingly, he was sentenced as mentioned above. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the petitioner was taking the bus back from Faridkot City to Moga, at about 11.30 A.M. near railway crossing, and turning the bus on one side, suddenly scooter being driven by Prem Chand came on the main road from court complex side and entered Talwandi Road. The bus being at the time in the city was being driven at a moderate speed, however, due to sudden turn taken by the scooterist and to save him, Prabh Dayal, Kanta and their infant Kukki expired. The accident was not caused due to rash and negligent driving by the petitioner. In fact, during trial the prosecution had not been able to prove the fact that bus was driven by the petitioner rashly and negligently which had resulted into death of three persons. The Investigating Officer of the case was not produced which could prove the site plan showing the location of the bus, scooter and the deceased. He being the important witness who could corroborate the prosecution story as was narrated by the other witnesses having not been produced, the entire case set up against the petitioner was to be found to be fake. Reliance was placed upon Balwant Singh vs State of Haryana 2007 (4) Law Herald (P&H) 2720. In the alternative, he submitted that in case this court does not find any merit in the case of the petitioner as far as his conviction is concerned, considering the fact that accident took place way back in the year 1993, 16 years have already gone bye and the petitioner being the only bread-earner of the family who had even been dismissed from the service after the accident, the petitioner may kindly be released on probation. In the alternative, it was submitted that in case the petitioner is not found to be entitled to probation, the quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioner may kindly be considered. Criminal Revision No. 639 of 1997 [3] On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that it is a case where in the accident on account of rash and negligent driving by the petitioner three persons lost their lives. The petitioner has been convicted on account of unimpeachable evidence led by the prosecution, which cannot be faulted with and the prayer of the petitioner regarding grant of probation cannot be accepted. The persons, like the petitioner, who were creating havoc on the road by killing people are required to be dealt with sternly. Any relaxation to them in the form of probation would not meet the ends of justice. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The criminal jurisprudence is not only to punish the guilty to bring peace, discipline and harmony in the society but also to give opportunity to individuals to reform themselves. Within the parameters of law, an attempt has to be made to afford an opportunity to the individual to reform himself and lead the life of a normal, useful member of the society. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), 2001(9) SCC 161, considering this aspect of the matter, observed as under: “........ Punishment in criminal cases is both punitive and reformative. The purpose is that the person found guilty of committing the offence is made to realise his fault and is deterred from repeating such acts in future. The reformative aspect is meant to enable the person concerned to relent and repent for his action and make himself acceptable to the society as a useful social being. In determining the question of proper punishment in a criminal case, the court has to weigh the degree of culpability of the accused, its effect on others and the desirability of showing any leniency in the matter of punishment in the case. An act of balancing is, what is needed in such a case; a balance between the interest of the individual and the concern of the society; weighing the one against the other. Imposing a hard punishment on the accused serves a limited purpose but at the same time, it is to be kept in mind that relevance of deterrent punishment in matters of serious crimes affecting society should not be undermined. Within the parameters of the law an attempt has to be made to afford an opportunity to the individual to reform himself and the lead the life of a normal, useful member of the society and make his contribution in that regard. Denying such opportunity to a person who has been found to have committed offence in the facts and circumstances placed on record would only have a hardening attitude Criminal Revision No. 639 of 1997 [4] towards his fellow beings and towards society at large. Such a situation, has to be avoided, again within the permissible limits of law.” However, considering the fact that on account of accident caused in the hands of the petitioner, he has already lost his job and the fact that he faced the agony of criminal proceedings for 16 years and being the only bread earner of the family is certainly a mitigating circumstance to some extent which, in my opinion, is relevant for the purpose of consideration of quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioner. Accordingly, the sentence awarded to the petitioner under Section 304-A IPC is reduced from two years rigorous imprisonment to one year rigorous imprisonment. The sentence awarded under other sections and the fine imposed on the petitioner is maintained. It is directed that all the sentences awarded to the petitioner shall run concurrently. The petitioner will surrender before the trial court for undergoing remainder of the sentence, if any. The revision petition stands disposed of. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge August 7 ,2009 mk