Criminal Revision No. 1001 of 2000 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1001 of 2000 Date of Decision: 19.03.2009 Harjinder Singh, son of Kewal Singh son of Bhagwan Singh, aged 28 years, resident of village Haishian, PS Shankot, District Jalandhar. ... Revision-Petitioner Versus State of U.T. Chandigarh. ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Ms. Monika Jalota, Advocate, as Amicus Curiae, for the revision-petitioner. Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate, for the respondent. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This revision is directed against the judgement, dated 24.07.2000, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, vide which, it partly accepted the appeal, thereby reducing the substantive sentence, awarded to the accused, to one year from one and a half years, for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, against the judgement of conviction and the order of sentence dated 17.09.1999, rendered by the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, vide which, it convicted the Criminal Revision No. 1001 of 2000 2 accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months for the offence punishable under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code, and further sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one and a half years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1500/- for the offence, punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, at the same time, directing that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. 2. On 12.12.1992, Lady Constable namely Narinder Kaur, No. 1719 C.P. Traffic Staff, Sector 17, Chandigarh, Lady Constable Surinder Kaur, No. 2068 C.P., and Jaswinder Singh, No. 770, Home Guard Volunteer of Traffic Staff, were on duty near the turning of Sectors 9/10 from 10 AM to 1.45 PM. At about 11.45 AM, when the complainant Lady Constable Narinder Kaur, was standing at the turning of Sector 10 and Lady Constable Surinder Kaur, No. 2068, was standing near the turning of Sector 9, regulating the traffic, a gypsy bearing registration No. CH-01-A-3422 being driven at a very fast speed came from the side of Punjab Civil Secretariat. Narinder Kaur, gave a signal to that gypsy to stop. A young man riding a cycle, however, stopped on such a signal, given by Narinder Kaur. However, the driver of the gypsy, in violation of the traffic signal, given by Lady Constable Narinder Kaur, hit the cyclist, as a result whereof, he was dragged to a distance The gypsy came to halt, at a little distance, ahead. Narinder Kaur, Lady Constable, and Surinder Kaur, Lady Constable, Criminal Revision No. 1001 of 2000 3 alongwith Jaswinder Singh, rushed to the site and found that the cyclist had suffered head injuries, which were bleeding and died at the spot. His age was about 17 years. The name of the driver of the gypsy was enquired. He disclosed his name as Harjinder Singh son of Kewal Singh, resident of Gurudwara Gursagar Sahib. In the meanwhile, another Traffic Constable Narinder Singh, arrived at the spot. It was stated that the accident had taken place, on account of the rash and negligent driving by Harjinder Singh, accused. On receipt of the information, with regard to the accident, Assistant Sub Inspector Bakshish Singh, alongwith other Police officials, reached the spot. He recorded the statement of Lady Constable Narinder Kaur PW1/A. The ruqa was sent through Constable Avtar Singh, on the basis whereof, the first information report PW9/B was registered. Rough site plan of the place of accident PW9/C, was prepared. Gypsy was taken into possession. A pair of hawai chappal, broken plastic piece of head light of gypsy, a broken piece of chain belt, a damaged bicycle, and broken glass pieces, were taken into possession, vide seizure memo PW1/B attested by the witnesses. Inquest report of the dead-body PW9/E was prepared by the Investigating Officer. The dead-body was removed to the General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh, for post-mortem examination. The accused was arrested at the spot. The accused produced the driving license, which was taken into possession vide memo PW1/D attested by the witnesses. The site of the place of accident was got photographed by the Investigating Officer. The Criminal Revision No. 1001 of 2000 4 statements of the witnesses were recorded. The name of the dead person, came to be known as Jitender Kumar @ Raju son of Ram Chet Kanojia, resident of village Kumaria Ghat, P.S. Raja Sultanpur, District Faizabad (U.P.). On arrival of the relations of the deceased, on 14.12.1992, the dead-body was handed over to them. After the completion of investigation, the accused was challaned. 3. On his appearance, in the Court, the accused was supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. Charge under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, was framed against the accused, which was read-over and explained to him, to which he pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Lady Constable Narinder Kaur (PW1), complainant, Jit Singh, Mechanic (PW2), Surinder Kaur (PW3), an eye-witness, DR. G. Verma, Medical Officer, Civil Dispensary, Sector 38, Chandigarh (PW4), Rattan Singh, Clerk, Office of the Licensing Authority (PW5), Rajiv Kumar, Junior Assistant, Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Chandigarh (PW6), Kishori Lal (PW7), Karnail Singh (PW8), and Bakshish Singh, Sub Inspector (PW9). Thereafter, the Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State, closed the prosecution evidence. 5. The statement of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded. He was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication. It was stated by him that on Criminal Revision No. 1001 of 2000 5 12.12.1992, he alongwith several devotees of Gurudwara Gursagar Sahib and Manager S. Inderpal Singh, reached the crossing of Sectors 9/10. In the meanwhile, Lady Traffic Police Constable, signalled a cyclist, to stop, but ignoring that signal, the cyclist came to the wrong side, fell down and hit the berm. The back portion of the gypsy hit the cycle. It was further stated by him that the gypsy was being driven, at a very slow speed of about 10 kms per hour. It was further stated by him that the accident took place, on account of the fault of the cyclist. He, however, did not lead any evidence in defence. 6. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated above. 7. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was preferred by the appellant (now revision-petitioner), which was partly accepted, as stated above. 8. Still feeling aggrieved, the instant revision-petition, was filed by the revision-petitioner. 9. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 10. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, did not challenge the conviction. Even otherwise, she could not successfully challenge the conviction, as the Courts below, on appreciation of the cogent, convincing and reliable evidence of Lady Constable Narinder Kaur, PW1, the complainant, as also the eye-witness, which was duly corroborated by Lady Constable Surinder Kaur, PW3, another eye- Criminal Revision No. 1001 of 2000 6 witness to the accident, Jit Singh, Mechanic, PW2, who mechanically examined the gypsy and found the same to be damaged, after the accident, and Dr. G. Verma, Medical Officer, PW4, at the relevant time posted in General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh, who performed the post-mortem examination on the dead-body, were right, in coming to the conclusion, that the accident took place, on account of the rash or negligent driving of the gypsy by the accused, as a result whereof, the cyclist namely Jitender Kumar @ Raju son of Ram Chet Kanojia, sustained multiple injuries, and died. It is settled principle of law, that the Court in its revisional jurisdiction, cannot reappreciate and reappraise the evidence, produced by the prosecution, until and unless, it comes to the conclusion, that the findings, recorded by the Courts below are, illegal, perverse or erroneous, on account of mis-reading of evidence. The careful perusal of the judgements of the Courts below, in context with the evidence, produced by the prosecution, does not, in any way, indicate that the findings of guilt, recorded by them (Courts below) are in any way illegal, perverse or erroneous, on account of the mis-reading of evidence. Under these circumstances, the findings, recorded by the Courts below, that the accused was guilty of the commission of offences, punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, do not warrant any interference, and deserve to be upheld. 11. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, however, submitted that the revision-petitioner, has been facing the protracted criminal Criminal Revision No. 1001 of 2000 7 proceedings, since 1992, when the first information report was registered i.e. for the last more than 16 years. She further submitted that the revision-petitioner has got no previous criminal record and, as such, he be given the benefit of the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The submission of the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, does not merit acceptance. On account of the rash or negligent driving of the gypsy, by the revision-petitioner, the accident took place, as a result whereof, a valuable life of a cyclist, aged about 17 years was lost. If, in such like cases, the probation is granted, then every driver, will indulge into rash driving, resulting into accidents, thereby putting an end to valuable lives. No ground, whatsoever, is made out, for the release of the revision-petitioner, on probation. The submission of the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 12. For the reasons recorded above, Criminal Revision No. 1001 of 2000, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed. The judgement dated 24.07.2000 of the Appellate Court, modifying the judgement dated 17.09.1999 of the trial Court, is upheld. If the revision-petitioner is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, is directed to comply with the judgement promptly. 19.03.2009 (SHAM SUNDER) AMODH JUDGE