In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 670 of 2003 Date of decision: March 24, 2009 Chamkaur Singh ... Petitioner vs. State of Punjab ... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 17.3.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner Chamkaur Singh (herein referred as 'the petitioner') against the judgment dated 11.2.1999 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagraon, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 338 IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each under Section 337 and 279 IPC. The brief resume of facts is that on 7.7.1995 complainant Surinder Singh got his statement recorded to the effect that on 6.7.1995 at about 5.30 p.m. he boarded the bus bearing registration No.PB-12- 8619 of Jagraon Depot from Ludhiana bus stand for going to his house at Moga. Gurdas Singh and Harbans Singh were also sitting in the said bus. The petitioner was driving the bus rashly and negligently. When the bus reached near Sidhwan Kalan Chowk, two trucks i.e. one truck towing another truck came from the opposite side which were also driven rashly and negligently and while crossing each other, right side of both the vehicles struck against each other, as a result of which arm of Surinder Singh as well as of Gurdas Singh were severed. The Crl. Revision No. 670 of 2003 -2- *** injured were removed to the hospital. It was alleged that the accident took place due to the negligence of the petitioner as well as of the drivers of both the trucks. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, FIR was registered and investigated. Completion of the investigation was followed by a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The petitioner was charged for the offence under Sections 279/337/338 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined Surinder Singh (PW1), Gurdas Singh (PW2), Balwinder Singh (PW3) Sher Singh (PW4) and HC Gurjant Singh (PW5). In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the petitioner denied the allegations and pleaded his false implication in the case. Ultimately the trial ended in conviction. The appeal preferred by him also failed. Record perused and assistance was provided by Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Having examined the impugned judgment, it transpires that Surinder Singh complainant (PW1) has vividly depicted the occurrence in all material particulars. His testimony finds corroboration from the testimony of Gurdas Singh (PW2) injured eye witness, who also deposed on the similar lines. In the present case, the accident took place when side of the bus as well as of the truck collided with each other, as a result of which arms of Surinder Singh complainant as well as of Gurdas Singh were severed. Both the courts below have rightly observed that even if the injured were resting their arms on the window rest and some portion of their arms was outside the window, it cannot be held that the accident took place due to the negligence of the injured. The petitioner in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has stated that in case he had taken the bus a little further towards right side, it would have turned turtle because there was pond on that side, meaning thereby he has admitted the accident. Identity of the petitioner is also not disputed as Surinder Singh (PW1) and Gurdas Singh (PW2) identified the petitioner who were sitting in the bus driven by the petitioner. Crl. Revision No. 670 of 2003 -3- *** The evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No illegality much less irregularity has been pointed out or detected resulting into miscarriage of justice. As such, findings of guilt returned by both the Courts below stand maintained. As regards the quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1995 and the petitioner has suffered a lot of agony on account of the protracted proceedings. No bad antecedents have been brought on record in order to dub him as habitual offender. Consequently, I deem it a fit case where some leniency could be extended to him. Resultantly, while dismissing the petition, sentence passed against the petitioner is modified to the extent that he be released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on his executing a bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana for a period of one year within which period he shall continue to be of good behaviour and keep peace and in case of breach of conditions of the bond, he will be ready to serve sentence as and when called for. However, the petitioner is directed to pay to Surinder Singh and Gurdas Singh a sum of Rs.10,000/- each on account of compensation within three months from today, failing which this petition would be treated as dismissed. Copy of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana for compliance. March 24, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge