Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kamaldeep Alias Pappu vs State Of Punjab on 17 September, 2014
Author: K.C. Puri
Bench: K.C. Puri
CRR No. 1185 of 2007 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRR No. 1185 of 2007 (O&M)
Date of decision : 17.9.2014
...
Kamaldeep @ Pappu
................Petitioner
vs.
State of Punjab
.................Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri
Present: Sh. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Sh. Yogesh Gupta, Assistant Advocate General,
Punjab.
...
K.C. Puri, J.
Challenge in this petition is the judgment dated 1.6.2007 passed by Sh. K.C. Gupta, Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur, vide which the appeal preferred by the accused-petitioner against the judgment and order dated 16.12.2013 passed by Sh. Jaspinder Singh, PCS, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurdaspur, was dismissed.
In brief the prosecution story is that on 27.3.99 ASI Ramesh Kumar received information from the S.H.O. P.S. Purana Shalla regarding death of Kamlesh w/o Jagga Masih in an accident. BANITA CHUGH 2014.09.22 12:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh CRR No. 1185 of 2007 -2- Thereafter, statement of Jagga Masih was recorded in which he has stated that he is a labourer. On 27.3.99, at about 5 P.M. he and his brother Rashid Masih and wife Kamlesh were returning to their village Dauwal. His wife was ahead of them and was on the left side. He saw one Tempo bearing NO. PB-06-A-1909 driven by Kamaldeep alias Pappu, who was known to him earlier, coming towards them with high speed without blowing horn and driven rashly and negligently on the wrong side and hit against his wife and thereafter, he ran away from the spot alongwith tempo. He and his brother Rashid Masih after making arrangement of vehicle brought Kamlesh in the hospital where she was declared brought dead. On the basis of statement of the complainant formal FIR was recorded. After completion of the necessary formalities, challan against the accused was presented in the court.
On completion of investigation challan was presented against the accused. Copy of the documents were supplied to the accused as envisaged in Section 207 Cr.PC.
On finding a prima facie case, charge under Sections 279, 304-A IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PW-1 Jagga Masih complainant, PW-2 Rashid Masih, eye witness, PW -3 Constable Krishan Gopal, PW-4 Surinder Masih, PW-5 ASI Mohan, PW-5 Dr. Jagjiwan Lal, PW-6 ASI Jassa Singh and thereafter closed the prosecution evidence. BANITA CHUGH 2014.09.22 12:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh CRR No. 1185 of 2007 -3-
On the closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.PC and all the incriminating evidence was put to him, to which he denied and pleaded false implication and innocence. The accused was called upon to lead his defence evidence, but he had chosen not to lead any evidence in defence.
Learned trial Court after appraisal of the evidence, held the accused guilty under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment and fine as under:-
u/s 279 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month u/s 304-A IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 months.
Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 16.12.2013 passed by Sh. Jaspinder Singh, PCS, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurdaspur, the accused preferred an appeal.
The said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 1.6.2007 passed by Sh. K.C. Gupta, Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur, Still feeling dissatisfied with both the above said judgments and order dated 16.12.2013 and 1.6.2007, the accused - petitioner has preferred the present revision petition. BANITA CHUGH 2014.09.22 12:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh CRR No. 1185 of 2007 -4-
Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Investigating Officer has not been examined and on that account, the petitioner has been seriously prejudiced. It is further submitted that the site plan has not been prepared. The prosecution has failed to prove the fact that accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the petitioner.
I have considered the abovesaid submission made by counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the record of the case.
Similar arguments were advanced before both the courts below but were repelled by both the Courts below. Counsel for the petitioner could not point out how the accused has been prejudiced by non-examination of Investigating Officer. Both the eye witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution on all material particulars. Both of them have been cross examined at length, but nothing could be brought on the file to discard their sworn testimony.
The next argument advanced by counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is facing trial for the last more than 15 ½ years. He is not a previous convict nor is involved in any other case. Prayer has been made for taking a lenient view regarding quantum of sentence. To fortify his argument, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the authorities reported as Tejwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab 2009 (5) RCR (Criminal) 526, Avtar Singh vs. State of Haryana 2010 (2) RCR (Criminal) 428 and Rameshwar Dass vs. State of Haryana 2010 (3) RCR (Criminal) 85.
BANITA CHUGH
I have carefully considered the abovesaid submission. 2014.09.22 12:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh CRR No. 1185 of 2007 -5- In authority reported as State of Punjab vs. Balwinder Singh and others 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 424 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while considering the quantum of sentence to be imposed for offence of causing death or injury by rash and negligent driving, one of the prime considerations should be deterrence. The accused was convicted under Section 304-A IPC by both the courts below. However, the High Court maintained the conviction, but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, which was a few days. In the said ruling, it has been held that a professional driver should not take a chance thinking that even if he is convicted, he would be dealt with leniency by the Court. The following principles laid down in authority reported as Dalbir Singh vs. State of Haryana 2000 (2) RCR (Criminal) 816, were taken into consideration:-
"1. When automobiles have become death traps any leniency shown to drivers who are found guilty of rash driving would be at the risk of further escalation of road accidents. All those who are manning the steering of automobiles, particularly professional drivers, must be kept under constant reminders of their duty to adopt utmost care and also of the consequences befalling them in cases of dereliction. One of the most effective ways of keeping such drivers under mental vigil is to maintain a deterrent element in the BANITA CHUGH sentencing sphere. Any latitude shown to them in that 2014.09.22 12:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh CRR No. 1185 of 2007 -6- sphere would tempt them to make driving frivolous and a frolic.
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 Section 304-A Indian Penal Code as attracting the benevolent provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders 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 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 BANITA CHUGH 2014.09.22 12:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh CRR No. 1185 of 2007 -7- causing death of a human being due to his callous driving of the vehicle he cannot escape from a 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."
The Hon'ble Apex Court set aside the order of the High Court reducing the sentence to 15 days only and sentenced the accused to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-. This Court in CRR No. 394 of 2014 titled as Pawan Kumar vs. State of Haryana decided on 4.4.2014, adopted the principle laid down in Balwinder Singh's case (Supra).
With due regard to the authorities in Tejwinder Singh's case (Supra), Avtar Singh's case (Supra) and Rameshwar Dass's case (Supra), while sitting singly, I am bound by the ratio of Judgment in Balwinder Singh's case (Supra). No undue leniency can be shown to the culprit in respect of offence under Section 304-A IPC.
However, keeping in view that the accused is facing trial for the last more than 15 years, the ends of justice would be met in case the sentence of imprisonment under Section 304-A IPC is modified and reduced to 1 year instead of 2 years awarded by the trial Court and I order accordingly. However, the sentence of fine under Section 304-A IPC and sentence of fine and imprisonment under Section 279 BANITA CHUGH IPC stands affirmed.
2014.09.22 12:52I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh CRR No. 1185 of 2007 -8-
The accused is stated to be on bail. He be taken into custody to undergo the remaining part of his sentence.
The revision petition stands disposed of with the abovesaid modification.
A copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court for compliance.
( K.C. Puri ) 17.9.2014 Judge chugh BANITA CHUGH 2014.09.22 12:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh