Criminal Revision No.1888 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1888 of 2003 Date of Decision 03.03.2010 Jasbir Singh @ Kala ...... Petitioner(s) VERSUS State of Punjab ...... Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Ms.Ranjana Salaria, Advocate, as Amicus Curiae, for the petitioner. Mr.C.S.Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent-State. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: This petition is directed against the judgment dated 03.06.2003, passed by Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, dismissing the appeal, preferred by the petitioner-accused (hereinreferred as 'the accused'), against the judgment dated 28.07.2000, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fatehgarh Sahib, convicting and sentencing him as under:- Under Section Sentence 279 IPC R.I. for a period of six months. 304-A IPC R.I. for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. 338 IPC R.I. for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.300/-. The case relates to the death of Sushil Kumar Bhatia, an IAS Officer, posted as Secretary Personnel in the Secretariat Punjab Criminal Revision No.1888 of 2003 2 Government, Chandigarh, who on 13.10.1995 at about 5:00 a.m. alongwith his wife Aarti Bhatia, daughter Puja, son Sameer Bhatia, and maid servant Pinky was coming from Ludhiana to Chandigarh in his Maruti Car bearing registration No.DL-3C-0500, Sushil Bhatia was driving the vehicle whereas Aarti Bhatia was sitting by his side. At about 6:30 a.m., when they reached about 1½ kilometer ahead of Gurdawara Sahib at Ranwa, the accused while driving the truck bearing registration No.PB-12-2173 rashly and negligently came from the wrong side and struck against the car and then after crossing the road went into the fields. Resultantly, all the occupants of the car were injured. However, Sushil Bhatia died on 17.10.1995. Due to the accident, the car was also badly damaged. After coming out of the truck, the accused came to Aarti Bhatia and started begging pardon. After some people collected at the spot, the accused disappeared. Case was registered against him on the statement of Aarti Bhatia, which was investigated. The completion of investigation was followed by the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The accused was charge-sheeted under Section 279, 338 and 304-A IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses. Subhash Kaushal (PW1) proved the photographs of the place of occurrence, Dr.S.K.Sharma (PW2) conducted the autopsy on the dead body of deceased Sushil Bhatia, Dr.Sanjay Kapoor,(PW3) simply referred the injured Sushil Bhatia, Pooja, Sameer and Pinki from Civil Hospital Samrala to CMC, Ludhiana, Karam Singh (PW4) had mechanically inspected the offending vehicle as well Maruti car, Raghbir Singh (PW5) is the owner of the offending vehicle, ASI Bhupinder Singh (PW6) had simply Criminal Revision No.1888 of 2003 3 recorded the FIR, Head Constable Manjit Singh (PW7) witnessed the recovery effected by IO during the course of investigation, Jasdev Singh (PW8) proved the driving licence possessed by the accused, Smt.Aarti Bhatia (PW9) and Sameer Bhatia son of the deceased (PW10) witnessed the occurrence, Rajinder Singh, Clerk DTO Office, Ropar (PW11) proved the ownership of the truck, ASI Balwinder Singh, IO, (PW12) conducted the investigation, Prem Kalia (PW13), identified the dead body of the deceased, G.S.Hara (PW14) sent information regarding admission of injured in Daya Nand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication. However, he did not lead any evidence in defence. On scrutiny of the evidence, the trial Court convicted the accused. His appeal was also dismissed. While opening the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused has urged that both the Courts below were not correct while placing reliance on the testimony of Aarti Bhatia. She was not present at the time of occurrence. However, she was introduced lateron. Having gone through the aforesaid arguments, the same lack merit. There is no denying a fact that at the time of occurrence, Sushil Bhatia, Puja, Sameer and Pinki had suffered injuries whereas Aarti Bhatia had the narrow escape that is why she was not admitted in the hospital. In order to support the case, there was no dearth of the witnesses and anybody out of the injured could be examined. Besides Smt.Aarti Bhatia, PW10 Sameer while appearing in the witness box, has deposed about the time, place and manner in which the occurrence had taken place. He has admitted the presence of Criminal Revision No.1888 of 2003 4 Aarti Bhatia at the spot. Despite the lengthy cross-examination conducted upon him, nothing fruitful could be elicited from his testimony which could create doubt over his veracity. Ample evidence has been led to establish the presence of Aarti Bhatia at the spot. There is a documentary evidence in the shape of FIR, ruqa sent by Dr.Sanjay Kapoor Ex.PC, and the information sent by Daya Nand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana Ex.PW14/A to Ex.PW14/C. Similarly the police requests Ex.PW12/A to Ex.PW12/H stand fully corroborated by Aarti Bhatia who has testified that on 13.10.1995 at about 6:30 a.m., when their car reached near Gurdwara Sahib then the accused while driving the truck bearing registration No.PB-12-2173, rashly and negligently came from the side of Chandigarh and hit the car and thereafter it went to the fields. The damage caused to the car as well as the fact that after striking into the car, the accused alongwith truck went to the fields, go a long way to establish rashness and negligence of the accused. The identity of the accused is amply established in the case. Both the witnesses had ample opportunity to see the accused and they identified him in the Court. Aarti Bhatia has categorically stated that she identified the accused as he after the accident came to her and started begging pardon that he had committed the mistake. Similarly, PW10 Sameer Bhatia had also identified him in the Court. The argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that, had Aarti Bhatia been present at the time of occurrence then she would have also suffered the injuries, does not appeal to the reason as if we delve deep into the mechanical report then it transpires that Aarti Bhatia was sitting on the left of the driver seat whereas according to the mechanical report, there was no damage to the left side of driver seat but damage was caused to the Criminal Revision No.1888 of 2003 5 driver side seat. It may further be observed that both the Courts below have returned the concurrent findings of fact that the accident took place as a result of rash and negligent driving of the offending truck driven by the accused. No such illegality much less irregularity has been pointed out so as to render the judgment as illegal. As regards the quantum of sentence, the careless and rash driving at the hands of the ruthless and unscrupulous drivers while ignoring the traffic rules, has become a fashion of the day and such activities are required to be curbed stringently. As such, no grounds for extending any leniency on the quantum of sentence are made out. Resultantly, finding no merit in the revision petition, the same is dismissed. Amicus Curiae would be at liberty to claim the remuneration from the concerned authorities as per rules. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 03.03.2010 mamta-II