1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Rev. No. 239 of 2002. Date of Decision: 31.8.2010 *** Satbir Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. P.S. Hundal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Premjit Singh Hundal, Advocate and Mr. Y.P. Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Malhotra, Addl. A.G. Haryana *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Through the instant petition, a challenge has been laid to the judgments passed by the Courts below. The petitioner was tried for the commission of offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code with the allegations that on 20.2.1996 he was driver on Haryana Roadways Bus No. HR05B-3546. When the said bus reached near Fountain Chowk, Gohana, complainant Ganga Bishan and his wife Smt. Chandro tried to board the bus, then he, moved the bus rashly and negligently, as a result of which Smt. Chandro fell down and run over by the rear wheel of the bus. Smt. Chandro died at the spot while the accused made good his escape from the spot, after leaving the bus. During trial, prosecution produced as many as six witnesses, including complainant Ganga Bishan and eye witness Prem Singh. The accused denied the incriminating evidence comes against him and pleaded false implication. In his defence, he produced Ram Kumar as DW1, who was conductor on the offending vehicle at the time of accident. . On conclusion of trial, the trial court found the charges proved 2 against the petitioner and accordingly sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and six months with a fine of Rs.300/- under Section 304-A IPC while sentence of six months' simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.200/- was awarded to him under Section 279 IPC. In default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for one month was awarded to the petitioner. Both the sentences were to run concurrently. Fine is stated to have been paid by the convict before the trial court. The appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by the appellate Court below, leading to the filing of the instant criminal revision. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and record perused. In the instant case, the accident and as a consequence thereto the death of Smt. Chandro is not in dispute. According to the prosecution, Smt. Chandro died due to run over of rear tyre of bus being driven rashly and negligently by the accused while the accused has attempted to show that Smt. Chandro herself was negligent as she tried to board the running bus, consequently she fell down and came under the rear tyre of the bus. I have gone through the judgments passed by the Courts below. Both the Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence adduced by the prosecution in the shape of eye witnesses i.e. PW.5 Ganga Bishan and PW.6 Prem Singh, coupled with that of investigating officer and medical expert, to prove the guilt of the accused to the hilt. An attempt has been made by the defence to show that Smt. Chandro attempted to board the moving bus and in that process she could not balance herself and came beneath the tyre of the bus, which was running at a slow speed. In this regard, the defence has got examined DW1 Ram Kumar, who was allegedly Conductor on the said bus at the time of accident. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court towards the statement Ex.P1 of the complainant, on the basis of which FIR was registered, to contend that therein the complainant has also not stated that the bus had stopped at the place, meaning thereby Smt. Chando had attempted to board the bus in moving condition and in all this there is no fault of the driver. But the stand of the defence seems to be improbable. Both the eye witnesses i.e. PW5 and PW6 have consistently deposed that the accused all of a sudden speed up the bus, 3 due to which Smt. Chandro crushed under the back tyre of the bus. Had the bus been at a slow speed, as alleged by the defence, there would not have much distance between the place where Smt. Chandro crushed under the tyre and the place where the bus stopped, as is apparent from the photographs of the place of occurrence. The testimony of DW1 is of no help to the prosecution. His self serving statement without any corroboration in the shape of duty slip etc., to prove that he in fact was a Conductor on the bus at the time of accident, is of no avail. Even if it is assumed that he was Conductor on the bus, then possibility cannot be ruled out that he being the co-employee would depose in favour of the accused to help him. Further, non-mentioning of the fact in the FIR that the bus had stopped there, is of no consequence. The FIR is not encyclopedia wherein each and every minute details are required to be given, but its purpose is to give information about the manner in which the occurrence had taken place and by whom. 1t can also be not forgotten that the scope to interfere with the concurrent findings, by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is very limited. A perusal of the judgments passed by the Courts below leave no manner of doubt that the accident in question was outcome of the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, as a result whereof one innocent person lost her life. Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for taking a lenient view towards the petitioner in the matter of sentence and has contended that the matter pertains to the year 1996 and since then the petitioner has underwent the agony of criminal proceedings. The petitioner has undergone about two months of custody in relation to the present occurrence and has grown up daughters to look after. He is Government employee and all this adversely affect his career. Thus, it has been prayed that the sentence be reduced to the period undergone by him. Keeping in view the fact that due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, Smt. Chandro has lost her life, it will not be in the fitness of things to reduce the sentence to the period undergone. However, keeping in view the antecedents of the petitioner, he deserves some leniency. For the discussion above, the sentence awarded to the petitioner under Section 304-A IPC is reduced to the period of six months, which shall run concurrently with the other sentence awarded to the petitioner under 4 Section 279 IPC. However, the sentence of fine is maintained. The petitioner who is on bail, shall surrender before the CJM concerned forthwith to undergo the remaining part of his sentence, failing which his warrants of arrest be issued by the CJM concerned. Copy of this order be sent to the Court of CJM concerned forthwith With the above modification, the instant revision petition stands disposed of. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE August 31,2010 Jiten