Criminal Revision No.761 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.761 of 2006. Date of Decision : 3.3.2011. Hakam Singh ...... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Ms. Rakhi Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, DAG, Punjab, for the respondent-State. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) This revision is directed against the judgment dated March 21st, 2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated February 1st, 2005 of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhuri whereby, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under:- Offence Sentence Fine In default u/S 279 IPC RI for 6 months Rs.500/- RI for 1-1/2 months u/S 304-A IPC RI for 2 years Rs.2000/- RI for 3 months Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. On August 9th, 2001 Gurjit Singh and Gurdip Singh (both deceased) were going on their scooter from village Rajo Majra to Dhuri. Gurmit Singh-complainant (PW-2) and Onkar Singh (PW-3) were following them on their respective scooters. When they reached in the area of village Kakarwal, a bus of Punjab Road Transport Corporation, Barnala bearing No. PB-11-E-9581 driven by Hakam Singh-petitioner at a fast speed and in rash and negligent Criminal Revision No.761 of 2006 2 manner came from the opposite direction and struck against the scooter. As a result thereof, Gurdip Singh died on the spot and Gurjit Singh received multiple injuries. The petitioner managed his escape after leaving the bus there. Gurmit Singh (PW-2) and Onkar Singh (PW-3) brought the injured and the dead body of Gurdip Singh to Civil Hospital, Dhuri. Gurjit Singh succumbed to his injuries on the same day. On the statement of Gurmit Singh (PW-2), First Information Report (Exhibit PA/2) was registered against the petitioner under Sections 279 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code. Shisham Paul-investigator (PW-6) reached the spot. Scene of occurrence was photographed. Site plan (Exhibit PM) was prepared. The offending bus was taken into possession and on August 10th, 2001, the petitioner was arrested. 3. On the completion of the investigation, the accused was charged for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and as he pleaded not guilty, he was brought to trial. 4. Prosecution in support of its case examined Jaspal Singh (PW-1), Gurmit Singh (PW-2), Unkar Singh (PW-3), Naresh Kumar (PW-4), Dr. R.P. Jindal (PW-5), Sisham Paul (PW-6), Ajit Singh (PW-7), Gurdev Singh (PW-8) and Avtar Singh (PW-9). 5. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied his complicity and pleaded innocence. 6. The solitary argument of learned counsel for the petitioner was that prosecution failed to prove that petitioner was at the wheel of the bus at the time of occurrence and as such he deserves acquittal. 7. The eye witness account has been rendered by Gurmit Singh-complainant (PW-2) and Onkar Singh (PW-3). Both of them have spoken in one voice that on the fateful day, Gurjit Singh and Gurdip Singh were on their scooter and they were following them on their respective scooters. The offending bus came from opposite side driven by the petitioner at a high speed and in rash and negligent manner struck against the scooter of Gurjit Singh. Gurdip Criminal Revision No.761 of 2006 3 Singh-pillion rider died on the spot and Gurjit Singh in the hospital. Apart from the evidence of eye witnesses, there is clinching evidence consisting of the photographs (Exhibits P-1 to P-3) and the site plan (Exhibit PM) to prove that the occurrence took place on account of negligence of the driver of the bus. A perusal of the photographs and the site plan shows that the deceased were going on the extreme left side and the bus came from opposite direction and hit them after swerving towards the right. The eye witnesses have not only given a description of the occurrence, they have brought home the acts of rashness and negligence on the part of the petitioner. To cap it all, they had no extraneous reasons to depose falsely nor their testimony could be shaken despite searching questions put in the cross- examination. 8. The death has been proved by the statement of Dr. R.P. Jindal (PW-5) and autopsy report proved by him. The injuries were such as could be suffered in a vehicular accident. As regards the petitioner being not at the wheel of the offending vehicle, Gurdip Singh, Inspector Punjab Road Transport Corporation (PW-8) has deposed that on the day of occurrence, the petitioner was driver of the bus. In view of this, the argument of the counsel for the petitioner that he was not driving the bus at the time of accident is of no avail. 9. Species of crime increase with development. Cyber crime is an example of recent era. The advent of motor vehicles brought with it the crime of road side accident. Increase in the number of vehicles, rashness, negligence and a devil may care attitude of the drivers is taking a heavy toll if the statistics of deaths and bodily injury are considered. A maximum sentence of imprisonment for 2 years was provided under Section 304-A IPC. The situation has now become alarming and there are loud voices from all corners demanding a sterner punishment for the offence and time has come when the agony suffered by victims, their kith and kin and road users in general, has to be given the sympathy and the weight that it genuinely deserves. 10. Whether to take a lenient view in a case under Criminal Revision No.761 of 2006 4 Section 304-A IPC will depend on variety of factors, most importantly the facts and circumstances and degree of rashness or negligence involved in a particular case. 11. It will not be out of place to add that leniency in matter of sentence or extending the benefit of release on probation in such cases should not be a rule. Of course, Courts shall be justified in taking a lenient view where strong circumstances so demand. 12. In the case in hand, as many as two precious human lives were tragically cut short by the rash and negligent act of the petitioner. To show leniency to the accused shall be callousness as regards the next of the kin of the victim. 13. In view of what has been stated above, the impugned judgments do not suffer from any infirmity and are, therefore, upheld. Resultantly, the revision being devoid of merit is dismissed. 14. The petitioner was released on bail by this Court during the pendency of the revision. His bail/surety bonds are cancelled. He be arrested and sent to jail to undergo the remaining part of sentence. Learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhuri is directed to comply with this order forthwith under intimation to this Court. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 3.3.2011 SN