Criminal Revision No.832 of 2001 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.832 of 2001 Decided on : February 18, 2009 Nafe Singh ... Petitioner VERSUS The State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.K.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Rajat Goyal, Assistant Advocate General Haryana. A.N.JINDAL, J.- This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 28.4.2001 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, dismissing the appeal of Nafe Singh, accused – petitioner (herein referred as `petitioner') against the judgment dated 4.4.1998 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak, convicting him under Section 279/304-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months under Section 279 IPC and one year and fine of Rs.400/- under Section 304-A IPC. Criminal Revision No.832 of 2001 [ 2 ] In brief, the facts as unfolded by the prosecution during trial are that on the intervening night of 1/2.6.1991, Jogender Singh – complainant (herein referred as `complainant'), his brother Naresh on their tractor-trolley bearing No.HRO-3852 and Azad Singh on his tractor No.MPJ-9915 were on way back to their village after dropping the sugar-cane in the sugar-mills at Rohtak. At about 3.30 a.m, on 2.6.1991, when they reached at the turning point of village Singhpura Kalan, Naresh and Azad Singh stopped their tractors on the left side of the road. The complainant remained sitting on it. Azad Singh and Naresh were trying to unlock the trolley of the tractor belonging to Naresh (HRO- 3952), when the petitioner while driving the offending truck bearing No.HRV-2735 rashly and negligently came from the side of Rohtak and hit the trolley. Resultantly, the tractor turned on the right kacha berm and Azad and Naresh sustained injuries. On hearing sound of accident, Rachhpal Singh, Sarpanch, who was working in the nearby fields, arrived there. The complainant and Rachhpal Singh took care of both the injured, but by then, both the injured succumbed to their injuries. On seeing that Naresh and Azad had died, the petitioner fled away from the spot. A case was registered against him and investigated. On completion of the necessary formalities, challan under Section 279/304- A of the Indian Penal Code was presented in Court. The petitioner was charged for the aforesaid offences, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in order to substantiate the charges examined as many as eight witnesses. In his statement under Section Criminal Revision No.832 of 2001 [ 3 ] 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner pleaded his innocence and alleged false implication in the matter. He further alleged that the fault was with the drivers of the tractors, who had driven their vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. However, the trial resulted into conviction and the appeal also failed. Arguments heard. Record perused. In the case in hand, one fact is admitted that the petitioner was on the wheels of the offending truck and thus, the only point which is now to be determined is as to whether he was driving rashly and negligently, which became the cause of this fatal accident, swallowing two human lives. Jogender Singh (PW7) has very categorically stated that the truck in question being driven in very rash and negligent manner came from the side of Rohtak and collided with the trolley, as a result of which Naresh and Azad were crushed in between the truck and the trolley and succumbed to their injuries at the spot. The testimony of this witness remained unshattered and this court also does not see any reason to disbelieve the same. It is a settled principle of law that even the statement of sole eye-witness is sufficient to base conviction, if it fetches the confidence and reliability of the Court. No blot or blemish can be attributed to the statement of Jogender Singh (PW7). This witness also stated that Azad and his brother Naresh (both deceased) were trying to unfasten the trolley near Singhpura turning, while he was sitting on the tractor. The testimony of this witness remained unchallenged qua this fact. It was never suggested to him that Azad and Naresh were not trying to unfasten the trolley, therefore, the Criminal Revision No.832 of 2001 [ 4 ] necessary conclusion will be that both the tractors were in stationary condition, falsifying the stand taken by the petitioner in his defence. As the fact of driving the offending truck is almost admitted by the petitioner and it has also come in the evidence that he had got down from the truck to see the injured and disclosed his identity, but he fled away from the scene after seeing that Naresh and Azad had already expired. Therefore, conclusion in all human probabilities would be that the petitioner drove the truck so rashly and negligently that he was unable to control it, as a result of which he struck the truck against the trolley, taking lives of two persons. Thus, the judgment of conviction is upheld. Coming to the quantum of sentence, it is a matter of common experience that a day in and day out, these truck drivers in utter disregard to the traffic rules and instructions without bothering the other smaller vehicles moving on the road-side, drive ruthlessly and carelessly rendering thousands of people as dead and lacs of people as injured and disabled, therefore, leniency, if shown to the petitioner would be travesty of justice as also encouraging such people, to have a free hand to drive carelessly, rashly and negligently in future. To my mind, the sentence awarded against the petitioner is already on the lower side. As such, no justification could be seen for reduction in the sentence. Consequently, finding no merit in the revision petition, the same is dismissed. February 18, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE