In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 1723 of 2003 Date of decision: July 08, 2009 Sukhwinder Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. J.S. Toor, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent-State. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 28.7.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner (herein referred as 'the petitioner') against the judgment dated 7.5.2001 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.200/- under Section 279 IPC; and further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 304-A IPC. In short, the facts are that on 15.12.1998, 20 members had gone for paying obeisance to Beas on a four wheeler bearing registration No.PB- 08-J-2018, being driven by Sheikher. After crossing Hamira chowk, Sheikher stopped the four wheeler on the left side of the road for allowing the passengers to answer the call of nature and after stopping the tempo on the left side of the road, he himself started cleaning the front glass. In the meanwhile, the petitioner while driving the bus bearing registration No.CHW-8615, rashly and negligently struck at the back of the four wheeler, as a consequence of which the four wheeler turned towards the southern side. Sheikher died at the spot while coming underneath the tyres of the bus. Besides Sheikher, one other passenger had also died. On the aforesaid statement of Gopi Chand, recorded by Jagjit Singh ASI, FIR Ex.PE/2 was recorded. The inquest was conducted upon two bodies i.e. Sheikher and one unknown person, thereafter, the same were sent for Crl. Revision No. 1723 of 2003 -2- *** postmortem examination. During investigation, registration certificate of the bus and the driving licence of the petitioner were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PF. Registration certificate of the tempo and the driving licence of Sheikher were also taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PG. The tempo and the bus were got mechanically tested; site plan Ex.PK of the place of occurrence was prepared. On completion of the investigation, the petitioner was challaned. He was charged for the offence punishable under Sections 279/304-A IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Dr. H.L. Mehmi (PW1) who conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Sheikher and proved postmortem report Ex.PA and also post mortem report of unknown person Ex.PB. Amrik Singh C-2 (PW2) proved the mechanical report Ex.PC relating to tempo bearing registration No.PB-08-J-2018 and Ex.PD relating to bus bearing registration No.CHW-8615. Gopi Chand (PW3) is the complainant, Gurnam Singh (PW4) is the another eye witness of the occurrence, ASI Jagjit Singh (PW6) being the Investigating Officer proved the statement of Gopi Chand Ex.PE, FIR Ex.PE/2, site plan Ex.PK; inquest report of Sheikher Ex.PL and of unknown person Ex.PM. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the petitioner denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in the case. However, no evidence was led in defence. Ultimately the trial ended in conviction. Appeal preferred by him also failed. Arguments heard. Record perused. Firstly, it has been urged that since the witnesses did not know the petitioner, therefore, the identity of the petitioner is doubtful in the absence of any test identification parade, benefit of which should go to the petitioner. Having pondered over the aforesaid argument, I do not find myself in agreement with the same. No doubt, in the statement Ex.PE, of Crl. Revision No. 1723 of 2003 -3- *** Gopi Chand, name of the driver is not recorded, but Gopi Chand had ample opportunity to see the petitioner as it was 7.40 a.m. and the day had already dawned. The petitioner after the accident had come down from the steering wheel and then succeeded in fleeing away. Thus, Gopi Chand had full opportunity to see the petitioner and perceive the manner in which he had caused the accident. The present case is not based on the testimony of Gopi Chand, alone but it finds support from Jathedar Gurnam Singh another eye witness who had also identified the petitioner, therefore, the question of mistaken identity does not arise. It may further be added that driving licence of the petitioner was also taken into possession from the spot which also indicates that the petitioner was the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident. As regards the other contention that the petitioner is not proved to be rash or negligent in driving the bus at the relevant time, it may be observed that it has been categorically deposed by Gopi Chand (PW3) and Gurnam Singh (PW4) that the tempo was lying parked on the left side of the road and the passengers had alighted from it to answer the call of nature. It was only Sheikher i.e. driver of the tempo who was cleaning the front glass and one unknown person was sitting in the tempo at that time. The offending bus struck against the tempo from behind, which was parked on the left side of the road, itself is sufficient to prove rashness and negligence of the petitioner. From the conspectus of the entire evidence and the circumstances of the case, it transpires that the main essentials to prove the offence against the petitioner stand fully established for holding him guilty of the offence for which he has been charged. No plausible defence has been led so as to prove his innocence. As regards the quantum of sentence, it has been often seen that the day in and day out, number of road side accidents are alarmingly on the rise. Thousands of people come under the spate of rash driving of the vehicles by the untrained, unqualified and illiterate drivers. Some times no trace of the offender is found and the crime goes unattended and unpunished. Sometimes the people after fleeing from the scene of crime come with variety of defences including identification. These are the rare Crl. Revision No. 1723 of 2003 -4- *** cases where witnesses dare to say and identify the drivers causing mass- killings and devastation. On account of accidents thousands of families loose their bread, become crippled and live at the mercy of others. As such, these unscrupulous elements indulging in the rash driving need to be strictly criticized. To deal with such people with leniency is likely to send wrong signals to the society and amounts to travesty of justice. Valuable lives are turned into corpus in the twinkling of an eye for the fault on the part of the negligent persons sitting on the wheels. As such I do not deem it a fit case where some leniency could be extended to him. Resultantly, the instant petition stands dismissed. The impugned judgment is maintained. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala is directed to take steps to procure the custody of the petitioner for serving remaining part of his sentence. July 08, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge