Crl. Revision No.667 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.667 of 2002 Date of decision : 16.03.2010 Gurjant Singh .... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Ms. Shikha Sharma, Advocate, for Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Bhullar, AAG, Punjab. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (Oral) Present revision petition has been filed by Gurjant Singh. He was named as an accused in case FIR No.60 dated 13.5.1994 registered at Police Station City Khanna under Sections 279/337/338/304-A and 427 IPC. Petitioner, an Assistant Lineman in Punjab State Electricity Board Amloh, was driving a tempo of the Board bearing registration no.PCI-9044 on 13.05.1994. According to PW-15 Senior Executive Engineer of the Electricity Board petitioner on the fateful day was driver of the official tempo of the Electricity Board. Due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, an accident took place on 13.05.1994 between two buses belonging to a private company and a Haryana Roadways. In the accident, Sharda Devi wife of Inderjit Crl. Revision No.667 of 2002 -2- Parashar, Chetan Dev @ Johny and Kanta Rani died and one Mohinder Singh received injuries along with various other persons. The trial Court relied upon the testimony of injured Mohinder Singh PW-1, PW-4 Budh Singh and PW-5 Mohinder Singh to hold that accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tempo driver. Prosecution had set out the case that the tempo driven by the petitioner had hit the private bus which was coming from the side of Khanna. Thereafter private bus after crossing the middle hit the Haryana Roadways Bus and passengers of the Haryana Roadways Bus died. The trial Court after holding petitioner guilty of offence under Section 279 and 304-A IPC, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 279 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for three months under Section 304-A IPC, vide judgment and order dated 11.10.2000. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner has filed an appeal. The Appellate Court upheld the conviction and maintained the sentence awarded by the trial Court. The Appellate Court was of the view that three persons had died in the accident. Ms. Shikha Sharma, Advocate appearing for Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate has stated that it has come in the testimony of PW-1 Mohinder Singh that the driver of the tempo was not known to him. He learnt about his name from the police. My attention is drawn to the testimony of PW-4 who had not identified the driver of the tempo and was declared hostile. Similarly, PW-5 Mohinder Singh had Crl. Revision No.667 of 2002 -3- also not identified the petitioner as driver of the tempo and was declared hostile. This Court ought to have given due credence to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution has failed to prove identity of the accused but this argument has to fail as prosecution had examined PW-15 Karan Singh Senior Executive Engineer of Punjab Electricity Board who on the basis of the record deposed that on the day of accident, petitioner was the driver of the official tempo and his statement to this effect was recorded by the police. Therefore, the identity of the driver has emerged from the testimony of his employer. The fact that petitioner was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner has come in the testimony of Mohinder Singh PW-1, PW-4 Budh Singh and PW-5 Mohinder Singh. Thus, no ground is made out to disturb the well-reasoned findings of guilt recorded by both the Courts below. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner has stated that in the present case, accident took place on 13.5.1994. A period of 16 years is going to elapse. It is submitted that petitioner is in corridors of the Court and has not committed any offence before or after the present occurrence. It is also submitted that petitioner is a sole bread earner of his family. At the same time, Court cannot become oblivious of the fact that in the accident, three precious lives have been lost. Taking protracted trial as a mitigating circumstance, this Court is of the view that ends of justice will be fully met in case sentence awarded upon the petitioner by the Courts below is reduced from 2 years RI under Section 304-A IPC to 9 months RI. However, sentence of fine and default clause is maintained. Crl. Revision No.667 of 2002 -4- Sentence awarded under Section 279 IPC is also maintained. Sentence on both the counts shall run concurrently. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) 16-03-2010 JUDGE manju