IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 792 of 2000 Date of Decision : March 08, 2010 Ram Sarup ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate. Ms. Shalini Attri, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) The petitioner was tried for offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC on the allegations that on 10.5.1994 at about 2.30 P.M. he drove Haryana Roadways bus in a rash and negligent manner and caused accident as a result of which Smt. Dhapa received the injuries to which she, later on, succumbed. Vide judgment and order dated 20/21.3.1998, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Mahendergarh convicted the petitioner under Section 304-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.400/-. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The petitioner was also convicted under Section 279 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-. Criminal Revision No. 792 of 2000 -2- In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved of his conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal but the same was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul on 11.7.2000. He then filed the present revision which was admitted on 4.9.2000 and he was granted the concession of bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per report Ex.PW1/A prepared by Ram Niwas, Mechanic, Haryana Roadways, the brakes of the bus were out of order on account of breakage of the compression pipe. Therefore, the petitioner could not be held responsible for causing the accident. It is the prosecution case that after causing the accident, the petitioner drove the bus away to the bus stand from where it was recovered. If the brakes of the bus had already failed before the accident, he would not have been in a position to take the bus to the bus stand. It appears that after reaching the bus stand, the petitioner was able to fiddle with the compression pipe as a result of which the brakes appeared to have gone out of order. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that there was contradiction as regards the place of occurrence from where the bus in question was taken into possession after the accident. According to Criminal Revision No. 792 of 2000 -3- Constable Suresh Kumar PW4, the bus was taken into possession from the spot, whereas according to PW2 Om Bir and PW8 Maya Devi, the petitioner had driven the bus from the place of accident and the bus was, later on, taken into possession from the bus stand. This type of contradiction cannot be given any credence in view of the recovery memo Ex. P4/A prepared by the police as per which the bus in question was taken into possession from the bus stand and not from the place of accident. Another submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Investigating Officer had not been examined. That would not make any difference as the Investigating Officer was not an eye witness. On the other hand, the prosecution had examined PW2 Om Bir and PW8 Maya Devi who had seen the occurrence. According to them, it was the petitioner who was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner at the relevant time and caused the accident. Therefore, non-examination of the Investigating Officer is not sufficient to discard the prosecution case. Similarly, non-examination of any independent witness is also no ground to doubt the veracity of the prosecution case. It is the quality of the evidence which has to be seen by the Court and not the quantity of the evidence. The testimonies of PW2 Om Bir and PW8 Maya Devi whose presence at the spot was natural and probable, inspire confidence. Criminal Revision No. 792 of 2000 -4- Learned counsel for the petitioner finally submitted that the petitioner was born in the year 1942. At present he is about 68 years of age. The petitioner has already served a period of about two months in jail out of the maximum sentence of one year imposed upon him. He is a poor person, who has four sons, one daughter and wife to look after. Therefore, the petitioner deserves leniency in the matter of sentence. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner by submitting that on account of rash and negligent driving by the petitioner, Smt. Dhapa received injuries and when she was being removed to the hospital, she succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, the petitioner does not deserve any lenient view in the matter of sentence. The petitioner has been facing the agony of criminal prosecution since the year 1994. At present he must be about 70 years of age. He was taken into custody on 11.7.2000 when the appeal filed by him was dismissed by the learned lower appellate Court. It was only on 4.9.2000 when the present revision filed by him was admitted that he was granted the concession of bail. He has, thus, undergone a substantive sentence of about two months. Moreover, the entire family of the petitioner is dependent upon him. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, the Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars, once again, for serving the remaining sentence. Ends of justice would Criminal Revision No. 792 of 2000 -5- be amply met if his substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone by him. At the same time, the petitioner can be directed to pay an amount of Rs.40,000/- as compensation to the legal heirs of deceased Dhapa. Resultantly, the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 304-A and 279 IPC is maintained. His substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone by him. The sentences of fine, alongwith their default clauses, as imposed by the trial Court, are maintained. The petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs.40,000/- with the trial Court within three months from today, failing which he shall be required to undergo the remaining substantive sentence of imprisonment. The amount of Rs.40,000/-, if deposited, be disbursed to the legal heirs of deceased Smt. Dhapa as compensation. But for the modification in the quantum of sentence, as indicated above, the revision fails and is, therefore, dismissed. ( T.P.S.MANN ) March 08, 2010 JUDGE satish