CRR No. 311 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No. 311 of 2002 Date of Decision 16.8.2010 Paramjit Singh ........ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ........ Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. P.S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arshvinder Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. JORA SINGH, J. Petitioner was sent up for trial by the SHO, Police Station Sadar, Patiala, on the allegation that on 11.11.1994, there was an accident near the Petrol Pump, in the area of Rajpura due to rash and negligent driving of Ambassador Car bearing registration No. CH-01-H- 0756, driven by the petitioner and in that accident Kesar Singh S/o Shamsher Singh, R/o Raipur Mandla, received multiple grievous injuries and while lying admitted in the Rajindera Hospital, Patiala, Kesar Singh had died. Vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.10.1998, rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala, arising out of FIR No. 300 dated 17.11.1994, registered under Sections 279/304-A/427 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Sadar, Patiala, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one month CRR No. 311 of 2002 -2- for offence under Section 304-A IPC. He was further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 4 months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 15 days for offence punishable under Section 279 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Against the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, appeal was preferred by the petitioner but the same was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, vide impugned judgment dated 4.2.2002. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 11.11.1994, Kashmira Singh, Sarpanch and Labh Singh were going to Rajpura on their scooter bearing registration No. PB-11-8564. Kesar Singh S/o Shamsher Singh R/o Raipur Mandla, on a motor-cycle bearing registration No. PJP-8061 was going ahead of them. At about 5.30 p.m. they were ahead of Petrol Pump situated towards Rajpura side. Then sighted Ambassador Car bearing registration No. CH-01-H-0756, while coming from Rajpura side. Car was being driven rashly and negligently. Kesar Singh was on the correct side of the road. Ambassador car was struck against the motor- cycle of Kesar Singh. Kesar Singh fell down and received multiple grievous injuries. Motor cycle was also damaged. Occupants of the car stopped some other private vehicle and in that vehicle Kesar Singh was shifted to Rajindera Hospital, Patiala. Kashmira Singh and Labh Singh had gone to village Raipur Mandla to inform the parents of Kesar Singh. Then they came to Rajindera Hospital alongwith Shamsher Singh, father of Kesar Singh but in the hospital Kesar Singh was found dead. Accident was due to rash and negligent driving of Ambassador car by its driver. From Rajindera Hospital, Patiala, wireless message was sent to Police Station Sadar, Patiala, and Police Station Sadar, Patiala CRR No. 311 of 2002 -3- had sent intimation to Police Post, Bahadurgarh. On receipt of message ASI Gurjant Singh had gone to Rajindera Hospital, Patiala where Kashmira Singh, Labh Singh and Shamsher Singh were found present. Statement of Kashmira Singh, Sarpanch, S/o Budh Singh resident of Budanpur was recorded. After making endorsement statement was sent to the police station on the basis of which formal FIR was recorded. Inquest report was prepared and after post-mortem examination dead body of Kesar Singh was handed over to the relatives of the deceased for cremation. Accused was arrested on 30.3.1996 and after completion of investigation challan was presented. Accused was charge-sheeted under Sections 279/304-A of the Indian Penal Code, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case prosecution examined number of witnesses. PW-1 Shamsher Singh, is the father of Kesar Singh (deceased). PW-2 Jawahar Singh had mechanically tested the vehicles involved in the accident. PW-3 HC Joginder Singh, was with the Investigating Officer in whose presence statement of Kashmira Singh was recorded. Motor-cycle and car involved in the accident were taken into police custody. PW-4 Kashmira Singh and PW-5 Labh Singh are the eye-witnesses and stated that they were going towards Rajpura on a scooter. Kesar Singh (deceased) was ahead of them on a separate motor-cycle. In the meantime Ambassador Car bearing registration No. CH-01-H-0756, while coming from Rajpura side, was being driven rashly and negligently and without blowing horn was struck against the motor- cycle of Kesar Singh (deceased). In the accident, Kesar Singh (deceased) received multiple grievous injuries and was shifted to Rajindera Hospital, Patiala in a private vehicle. Accident was due to rash and negligent driving of Ambassador car by its driver. PW-6 Dr. O.P. Aggarwal, had conducted Post Mortem CRR No. 311 of 2002 -4- Examination on the dead body of the deceased and PW-7 ASI Gurjant Singh was the Investigating officer. After close of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. He denied all the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded to be innocent. Defence version of the petitioner was that he was not driving the Ambassador Car at the time of relevant accident. Opportunity was given to led defence evidence but no defence evidence was led. After hearing learned APP for the State, the learned defence counsel and from the perusal of the evidence available on the file the petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court vide judgment as stated aforesaid. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel and carefully gone through the evidence available on the file. After arguing for sometime, when learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment then stated that petitioner was serving in the Police Department as Constable. He further states that the petitioner has already under gone about 3 months and 19 days out of the actual sentence. Petitioner is the first offender and is ready to compensate the complainant party. Petitioner is to loose the job if directed to undergo imprisonment. Requested that petitioner be released on probation. Reliance was placed on 2009 (5) RCR (Criminal) 526 (“Tejwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab); Criminal Revision No. 1087 of 2008 decided on 19.2.2009 (“Harbhajan Singh and another Vs. State of Haryana”) and Criminal Revision No. 1469 of 2000 decided on 12.5.2010 (“Des Raj and another Vs. State of Punjab”). Learned State counsel argued that petitioner is the first CRR No. 311 of 2002 -5- offender but due to rash and negligent driving of Ambassador car by the petitioner, there was an accident. No objection if lenient view is taken. No doubt learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the judgment on the point of conviction but even then I want to scrutinize the evidence on file as to whether there was an accident due to rash and negligent driving of Ambassador car by the petitioner. Kashmira Singh as PW-4 and Labh Singh as PW-5 on oath stated that they were going towards Rajpura on a scooter bearing Registration No. PB-11-8564. At about 5.30 p.m. they were ahead of Petrol Pump situated towards Rajpura side. Kesar Singh (deceased) was ahead of them on a separate motor-cycle. He was on the correct side of the road and in the meantime Ambassador Car bearing registration No. CH-01-H-0756, came from Rajpura side and was being driven rashly and negligently and without blowing horn was struck against the motor-cycle of Kesar Singh (deceased). In the accident, Kesar Singh (deceased) received multiple grievous injuries. Motor cycle was also damaged. Occupants of the car stopped are private vehicle and in that vehicle Kesar Singh was shifted to Rajindera Hospital, Patiala. They had gone to village Raipur Mandla to inform the parents of Kesar Singh. Then they came to Rajindera Hospital alongwith Shamsher Singh, father of Kesar Singh but in the hospital Kesar Singh had already died. Accident was due to rash and negligent driving of Ambassador car by its driver. In the FIR the petitioner was not named but the petitioner was identified by the eye-witnesses when appeared in the Court. Petitioner was arrested on 30.3.1996. No dispute of accident with the Ambassador Car. The only dispute is as to who was driving the Ambassador Car at the relevant time. No one appeared in defence to state that at the relevant time some one else was driving the car and not the petitioner. CRR No. 311 of 2002 -6- Intimation was given to the father of the deceased. Eye- witnesses and father of deceased had gone to Rajindera Hospital, Patiala, but Kesar Singh had already died. Car was taken into police possession vide memo Ex. PA. Vehicle was taken into police possession from the spot after the accident. Dr.O.P.Aggarwal, had conducted Post-mortem Examination and found following injuries on the person of Kesar Singh (deceased): “1. There was lacerated wound 9 cm x 1 cm on the top head with abrasion on the forehead, on the face, on the nose and on the lip. The skull and Mandible and teeth were fractured. 2. There were multiple abrasions on the right thigh with fracture right femur. 3. Right leg and right foot were crushed into pieces. 4. Multiple abrasions were present on the back of shoulder.” He further stated that injuries cannot the self-suffered or self-inflicted. No suggestion to the doctor that injuries were not received in the motor vehicle accident. Before the present occurrence the complainant party had no enmity with the petitioner. No defence was led that on the day of occurrence the petitioner was in the police station or was away to some other State. Till today no complaint to any authority regarding false implication. From the perusal of the evidence available on file the trial Court rightly opined that accident was due to rash and negligent driving of Ambassador car by its driver. Revisional Court is not to re-evaluate or re-assess the evidence available on file. Impugned judgment is to be CRR No. 311 of 2002 -7- set aside if the Court is of the opinion that the evidence was mis-read or against law or perverse. Impugned judgment on the point of conviction is upheld. Admittedly, the occurrence is dated 11.11.1994 and at that time the petitioner was 27 years old and is the first offender. Petitioner was serving in the Police Department. In CRR No. 1469 of 2000 (supra) case was registered under Sections 325/324/342/34 IPC. Petitioners were ordered to be released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and were directed to pay Rs.20,000/- (Rs.10,000/- each) payable to the injured as compensation. Further ordered that release of the petitioner Kehar Singh on probation will have no effect on his service career. In CRR No. 1087 of 2008 (supra) case was under Sections 397, 216, 224 and 120-B IPC. Petitioners being employees were ordered to be released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, with the observation that they will not suffer any disqualification in service on account of their conviction under Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. In 2009 (5) RCR (Criminal) 526 (supra) case was under Section 304-A, 279 and 429 IPC. Petitioner was ordered to be released on probation. Incident was 10 years old and petitioner remained in custody for 1½ months. In the present case also accident is dated 11.11.1994. Petitioner remained in custody for about 3 months and 19 days. Petitioner is the first offender and was 27 years old at the time of occurrence. Petitioner is ready to compensate the complainant party. Petitioner is to loose his job if directed to undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court or if his sentence is reduced. Ends of justice would be fully met in case lenient view is taken. Keeping in view the fact CRR No. 311 of 2002 -8- of the case the petitioner is ordered to be released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, on furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year, failing to comply with the terms of bond, to undergo imprisonment as per the impugned judgment and will not suffer any disqualification in service on account of conviction under Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Petitioner is directed to deposit Rs.20,000/- as cost of litigation before the trial Court within two months. The amount deposited is to be paid to the widow of the deceased as compensation and in the absence of widow to the father of the deceased. For the reasons recorded above, the present revision petition is dismissed with modification on the point of sentence. August 16, 2010 ( JORA SINGH ) rishu JUDGE