Crl. Revision No.2020 of 2004 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2020 OF 2004. DATE OF DECISION : 6 -11-2009. Sawan Kumar alias Sarwan. ...... PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab. ..... RESPONDENT CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Ms. Gurpal Kaur Dulat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jaspreet Singh, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab. *** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 15.09.2004 rendered by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur vide which it dismissed the appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.10.2003 rendered by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur convicting and sentencing the present revision-petitioner for offence under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be called as 'Act') to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of Crl. Revision No.2020 of 2004 -2- fine to further undergo R.I. for one month. 2. Briefly put, the case of the prosecution is that on 16.11.2000 at about 7.30 PM, Kulwinder Singh – complainant alongwith his nephew – Amandeep Singh (deceased) were going on their respective scooters from Akoi Sahib to Sangrur. Amandeep Singh – deceased was ahead of complainant. When they reached about half kilometer ahead Moon Light Hotel towards Sangrur side, a truck bearing No. RJ-14-G-4285, which was being driven by Sawan Kumar alias Sarwan in a rash and negligent manner, came from opposite direction. The driver of the truck i.e. the present revision-petitioner could not control and hit against the motorcycle of Amandeep Singh by bringing the truck on the wrong side of the road. As a result Amandeep Singh alongwith motorcycle fell on the road and hence, sustained injuries. He was removed to Civil Hospital, Sangrur. As his condition was serious, he was referred to Ludhiana. However, he succumbed to injuries on the way and hence, he was brought back to Civil Hospital, Sangrur. 3. A case was registered on the statement of Kulwinder Singh – complainant in the morning of 17.11.2000. Accused was arrested and investigation was taken in hand. After completion of investigation, report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. was filed against the accused, the present revision-petitioner. The revision-petitioner was charged for offences punishable under Sections 279/304-A IPC to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 3. In order to substantiate the allegations against the accused, Crl. Revision No.2020 of 2004 -3- the prosecution examined Dr. H.S.Bali as PW1, Dr. Jaspal Singh as PW2, Kulwinder Singh as PW3, Constable Jarnail Singh as PW4, Sant Singh as PW5, Angrej Singh, ASI as PW6, Dr. Balwinder Singh as PW7 and Dharmeet Singh, Photographer as PW8. 4. Statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C of the accused was recorded in which he denied the incriminating evidence coming against him and pleaded innocence. However, the revision-petitioner did not lead any evidence in his defence. 5. Learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279/304-A of IPC beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt. Accused preferred appeal against the said judgment and however, his appeal was dismissed by the court of Sessions and hence, present revision petition. 6. I have heard Ms. Gurpal Kaur Dulat, learned counsel for the revision-petitioner and Mr.Jaspreet Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. 7. It is settled principle of law that in its revisional jurisdiction, this Court is not to reappreciate and reappraise the evidence until and unless, it comes to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the trial court are perverse, illegal and erroneous on account of misreading of evidence. The courts below while relying upon the cogent and convincing evidence of prosecution witnesses, were right in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt. Crl. Revision No.2020 of 2004 -4- 8. The revision-petitioner drove his truck bearing No.RJ-14- G-4285 at a very high speed. He could not control the same and hit against the motorcycle being driven by the deceased – Amandeep Singh due to which he fell down on the road from the motorcycle and sustained injuries and lateron he succumbed to the injuries. The presence of the truck involved in the accident being driven by the present revision-petitioner at the place of accident, is not disputed rather the revision-petitioner was present in the Civil Hospital, Sangrur and accompanied the complainant to the hospital and also signed some papers in the hospital. However, lateron when the condition of Amandeep Singh deteriorated, he ran away from the hospital. 9. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the revision- petitioner that the very presence of complainant – Kulwinder Singh at the place of accident is doubtful as the presence of accused was marked in the hospital at the time of admission of the injured. 10. However, merely on the ground that accused also accompanied complainant to the hospital and that his signatures were obtained by the hospital authorities on some papers, it can not be said that presence of Kulwinder Singh – complainant at the time of accident has become doubtful. This point has been duly considered by the learned Trial Court. 11. It has been further argued that there is delay in lodging the First Information Report. However, there is no force in this plea as well. The accident had taken place at about 7.30 PM on 16.11.2000. The injured was first removed to Civil Hospital to Sangrur and the ruqa Crl. Revision No.2020 of 2004 -5- was also duly sent to the police. The police arrived at Civil Hospital, Sangrur but the injured was already referred to Ludhiana as his condition was critical and the complainant accompanied the deceased to Ludhiana and on the way he succumbed to injuries and hence, they returned to Civil Hospital, Sangrur. Another ruqa was sent to the police intimating the death of Amandeep Singh and statement of the complainant was recorded in the morning of 17.11.2000. Hence, the delay in lodging the FIR is duly explained. Moreover, the presence of the truck being driven by the revision-petitioner at the time of accident is not disputed as the revision-petitioner accompanied complainant to the hospital. 12. Both the courts below came to the conclusion that deposition of complainant – Kulwinder Singh inspires confidence. He was having no enmity against the revision-petitioner and merely on the ground that he is related to the deceased, it can not be said that no reliance can be placed on his testimony. There is nothing as to why he should have deposed falsely against the accused. 13. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the revision-petitioner that he is facing trial since 16.11.2000 i.e. for the last about 9 years and that he was young boy of 28 years of age at the time of accident and is not a previous convict, hence, he should be granted benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act. 14. Law on the point as to whether the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act should be granted to the accused convicted for offence under Section 304-A of IPC, has been settled by Crl. Revision No.2020 of 2004 -6- Hon'ble Apex Court in Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana, 2000(2) RCR (Crl.) 816 by observing that the courts should not as a normal rule, invoke the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act when the accused is convicted of the offence under Section 304-A of IPC in causing death of human beings by rash or negligent driving. Relevant paragraphs No.12 and 13 of the judgment read as under:- “12. In State of Karnataka v. Krishna alias Raju (1987) 1 SCC 538 : (AIR 1987 SC 861 : 1987 Cri LJ 776) this Court did not allow a sentence of fine, imposed on a driver who was convicted under S. 304-A, I.P.C. to remain in force although the High Court too had confirmed the said sentence when an accused was convicted of the offence of driving a bus callously and causing death of a human being. In that case this Court enhanced the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for six months besides imposing a fine. 13. Bearing in mind the galloping trend in road accidents in India and the devastating consequences visiting the victims and their families, Criminal Courts cannot treat the nature of the offence under Sec. 304-A I.P.C. as attracting the benevolent provisions of Sec. 4 of the P.O. Act. While considering the quantum of sentence, to be imposed for the offence of causing death by rash or negligent driving of automobiles, one of the prime considerations should be deterrence. A professional driver pedals the accelerator of the automobile almost throughout his working hours. He must constantly inform himself that he cannot afford to have a single moment of laxity or inattentiveness when his leg is on the pedal of a vehicle in locomotion. He cannot and should not take a chance thinking that a rash driving need not necessarily cause any accident; or even if any accident occurs it need not necessarily result in the death of Crl. Revision No.2020 of 2004 -7- any human being; or even if such death ensues he might not be convicted of the offence; and lastly that even if he is convicted he would be dealt with leniently by the Court. He must always keep in his mind the fear psyche that if he is convicted of the offence for causing death of a human being due to his callous driving of vehicle he cannot escape from jail sentence. This is the role which the Courts can play, particularly at the level of trial Courts, for lessening the high rate of motor accidents due to callous driving of automobiles.” 15. This judgment was subsequently followed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in B.Nagabhushanam v. State of Karnataka, 2008(3) RCR (Crl.) 50 and the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act was denied to the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC. 16. Hence, there is no force in the argument of the learned counsel for the revision-petitioner that he deserves the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act. He has taken life of an innocent person, who was coming from the opposite side on his motorcycle, by driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner. 17. However, taking into consideration the fact that the present revision-petitioner is not a previous convict and he was of about 28 years of age at the time of accident and that he is facing trial for the last about 9 years, I am of the view that he deserves some leniency in the quantum of sentence. 18. Hence, while maintaining the judgment of conviction, convicting the present revision-petitioner under Section 304-A IPC, the Crl. Revision No.2020 of 2004 -8- order of sentence passed by the courts below is modified to the extent that sentence is reduced to one year RI for offence under Section 304-A while maintaining the sentence of fine. 19. Hence, the present revision petition is disposed of, accordingly. 20. If the revision-petitioner is on bail, his bail bonds stands cancelled. The concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate shall take necessary steps to comply with the judgment with due promptitude keeping in view the applicability of provisions of Section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure and submit his compliance report within two months. 21. The District and Sessions Judge concerned is also directed to ensure that the directions are complied with and that compliance report is sent within the time limit, to this Court. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) November 6 , 2009. JUDGE 'om'