Criminal Revision No.1357 of 2000(O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.1357 of 2000(O&M) Decided on : May 14, 2010 Ranjit ... Petitioner VERSUS The State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Rahul Vats, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Rajiv Malhotra, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent – State. A.N.JINDAL, J.- Two persons died, third suffered injured and their scooter was damaged in an accident when accused - petitioner Ranjit (herein referred as `the accused') while driving his tractor T-25 bearing Reg.No.DHG-9190 with two attached trolleys, rashly and negligently, struck against their scooter. Consequently, he was tried, convicted and vide judgment dated 27.8.1999, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/-. Vide judgment dated 27.9.2000, his appeal was dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that on 9.12.1992 at about 6.00 PM, Rohtas and Hoshiar Singh were going on scooter bearing Reg.No.HYB- 1326 towards village Garhi Brahmnana. At about 9.00 PM when they Criminal Revision No.1357 of 2000(O&M) [2] reached near Murthal, the accused while driving the offending tractor, with two trolleys attached to it, rashly and negligently came and hit against their scooter, as a result of which both of them suffered multiple injuries, so also Prem – complainant. On enquiry made by the complainant the accused disclosed his name as Ranjit s/o Lala Ram r/o Garhi Azadpur, District Sonepat, and, thereafter, he fled away. On the aforesaid statement, a case was registered and investigation commenced. ASI Sahib Singh visited the spot, prepared the rough site-plan, took the scooter into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PB. He also prepared the inquest report and got the post mortem conducted on their bodies. He also took the driving licence of the accused as also the RC of the offending tractor into possession. Both the vehicles were got mechanically examined by HC Padam Singh and his report revealed that the horn and lights of the tractor were not working. The accused was apprehended on 11.12.1992. On completion of the investigation, challan was presented. The accused was charged under Sections 279/304-A of the Indian Penal Code, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in order to substantiate the charges examined Siri Ram (PW1), Prem Singh (PW2), HC Padam Singh (PW3), Dr.H.R.Singhal (PW4), photographer Ranbir Singh (PW5) and ASI Sahab Singh (PW6). When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied all the allegations and pleaded his false implication. Ultimately, the trial ended in conviction. His appeal also Criminal Revision No.1357 of 2000(O&M) [3] failed. Star witness Prem Singh (PW2), an injured eye-witness was also an occupant of the scooter along with Hoshiar Singh and Rohtash. He is the best witness to prove the occurrence. He, besides having seen the occurrence, had also the opportunity to see the accused. He has specifically stated that the accused was driving the tractor rashly and negligently and he came and struck against the scooter from the front side, as a result of which both the lives were lost within twinkling of an eye. Then, he informed the complainant Siri Ram (PW1) about the occurrence verbatim. Thereafter, he along with Siri Ram went to the Police Station and got recorded the FIR at his instance. Prem Singh (PW2) had no enmity against the accused persons. That apart, in order to prove the presence of PW Prem Singh, the prosecution has examined Dr.H.R.Singhal (PW4), who testified that on 10.12.1992, he had examined Prem Singh and conducted the post mortem on the dead bodies of Hoshiar Singh and Rohtash. He stated that Prem Singh suffered the following injuries:- “1. There was a lacerated wound 5 cms x 1 cm present in mid-line on fronto-parietal bone. The wound was skin deep. Clotted blood was present on it. 2. Multiple abrasions were present on right knee joint. 3. Multiple abrasions were present on lower lip, left side. Clotted blood was present on it.” The accused has failed to establish, if the injuries on the person of Prem Singh (PW2) were the result of some other occurrence. Besides, the tractor and trolleys were also taken into possession by the Investigating Criminal Revision No.1357 of 2000(O&M) [4] Officer from the spot. The mechanical report Ex.PW3/A of the tractor made by HC Padam Singh (PW3) reveals that it did not have horn and lights, which fact itself is indicative to understand that the accused was negligent while taking the tractor-trolleys on the road without horn and lights. The case is not of mistaken identity. The witness had occasion and opportunity to see the driver at the spot and he had identified him in the court as well. The accused has no explanation to make if he has not been the driver of the offending tractor. He has not examined the owner of the tractor to prove that he was not driving the tractor at the relevant time. Even otherwise, there are concurrent findings of fact, returned by both the courts below that it was the accused, who while driving the tractor-trolleys rashly and negligently struck against the scooter taking two lives and also injuring the third one. No such infirmity or irregularity has been shown in the impugned judgment of conviction, warranting interference by this Court at this revisional stage. Now, coming to the quantum of sentence, the accused drove a tractor with two attached trolleys and that too without horn and lights, which resulted into drastic casualties. If such persons are extended some leniency, then it is likely to send adverse message to the society, therefore, no leniency can be shown to him. The sentence awarded to him is already on the lower side. Thus, the petition is dismissed. The copy of the judgment be sent to the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate for compliance. May 14, 2010 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE