Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jasmer Singh vs State Of Haryana on 10 November, 2009
Author: Ram Chand Gupta
Bench: Ram Chand Gupta
Crl. Revision No.1562 of 2001 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1562 OF 2001.
DATE OF DECISION : 10-11-2009.
Jasmer Singh.
...... PETITIONER
Versus
State of Haryana.
..... RESPONDENT
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr. Amit Goyal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Naveen Malik, Additional A.G., Haryana.
***
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.
This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 06.09.2001 rendered by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal vide which it dismissed the appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.11.1999 rendered by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal vide which the present revision- petitioner was held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called as 'Act') and was setenced to R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for offence Crl. Revision No.1562 of 2001 -2- under Section 279 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for 15 days. He was further sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 1-1/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1500/- for offence under Section 304-A IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for one and half months. However, the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 26.1.1992 at about 1.30 PM, Jagdish - complainant alongwith Sat Pal was going towards CSSRI on foot on Kacha path and his sister - Seema was going ahead of them towards her house. In the meantime a car bearing registration No. HR-Z-386 came from the opposite direction, which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. The driver of the car could not control and brought the same on the wrong side of the road and hit against Seema, due to which she sustained injuries. The car could be stopped after some distance. The driver of the car revealed his name as Jasmer Singh son of Prem Singh i.e. the present revision- petitioner. Injured was removed to hospital for treatment in the same car and however, lateron she was referred to PGI, Chandigarh where she succumbed to injuries on 03.02.1992. After completion of investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed against the accused for trial for offences punishable under Section 279/304-A IPC. Accused was charged accordingly by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal for offences punishable under Sections 279/304-A IPC to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
3. To substantiate the allegations against the accused, the Crl. Revision No.1562 of 2001 -3- prosecution examined six witnesses viz., PW1 is Head Constable Ram Niwas, in whose presence the Registration Certificate and Driving Licence of the accused were taken into possession. PW2 is Hira Singh ASI, Motor Mechanic who gave his report Ex.PW2/A after mechanically examining the car. PW3 is Dr. Piyush Sharma, who medically examined the injured and gave his report Ex.PW3/A. PW4 is Jagdish - complainant and eye- witness of the occurrence. PW5 is Baljinder Singh ASI, who is Investigating Officer of this case. PW6 is Dr. M.P.Singh, who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Seema and proved his report Ex.PW6/A. Another eye witness - Sat Pal was given up as he was won over.
4. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating evidence coming against him and pleaded innocence. However, the accused did not lead any evidence in his defence.
5. Learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279/304-A of IPC beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt and hence, he was convicted and sentenced as aforementioned. The appeal filed against the judgment was dismissed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal vide impugned judgment against which the present revision petition has been filed.
6. I have heard Mr. Amit Goyal, learned counsel for the revision- petitioner and Ms. Naveen Malik, Additional Advocate General, Haryana and have gone through the whole record.
Crl. Revision No.1562 of 2001 -4-
7. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the revision- petitioner that no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution and hence, no reliance can be placed on the sole testimony of Jagdish - brother of deceased, who is an interested witness being related to the deceased.
8. On the other hand, it has been been argued by the learned Additional Advocate General for the State that Jagdish is the most natural witness of the occurrence and that the accused alongwith the car was apprehended at the spot and in his presence the injured was removed to hospital. The identity of the car involved in the accident as well as accused who was driving the same, is not disputed. Hence, it is argued that there is nothing as to why Jagdish should have deposed falsely against the accused.
9. Deposition of Jagdish that in his presence the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of car inspires confidence of this Court. His sister was going ahead of him on the Kacha path of the road and she was walking on the left side. After the accident, she was removed to the hospital in the car of the accused. There is nothing as to why Jagdish - complainant should have deposed falsely. Moreover, the concurrent finding has been recorded by both the courts below believing the testimony of Jagdish, PW4.
10. It is settled principle of law that in its revisional jurisdiction, this Court is not to reappreciate and reappraise the evidence until and unless, it comes to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the trial court are perverse, illegal and erroneous on account of misreading of Crl. Revision No.1562 of 2001 -5- evidence. The courts below while relying upon the cogent and convincing evidence of prosecution witnesses, were right in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt.
11. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the revision- petitioner that the legal representative of the accused has already been awarded compensation by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal in view of settlement in Lok Adalat vide award dated 13.02.1993.
12. It has further been argued that the occurrence had taken place on 26.01.1992 and revision-petitioner is facing trial for the last about 18 years and has suffered much agony of protracted trial. It is further contended that he was not a previous convict and he is the only earning member of the family hence, it is argued that he should be given the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act. On this point he has placed reliance upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Paul George v. State of N.C.T. Of Delhi, 2008(2) RCR(Crl.) 478 and he has also placed reliance upon some other judgments rendered by different coordinate Benches of this Court in which benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act was given to the accused on the peculiar facts and circumstances of those cases for offence under Section 304-A IPC viz., Satwinder Singh v. Sate (U.T. Chandigarh) 2000(2) RCR(Crl.) 172, Krishan Kumar v. State of Punjab, 2005(3) RCR (Crl.) 579, Bachna Ram v. State of Haryana, 2005(3) RCR(Crl.) 966 and Girdhari Lal v. State of Punjab, 2007(1) RCR(Crl.) 988.
13. Law on the point as to whether the benefit of probation under Crl. Revision No.1562 of 2001 -6- the Probation of Offenders Act should be granted to the accused convicted for offence under Section 304-A of IPC has been settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana, 2000(2) RCR(Crl.) 816 by observing that the courts should not as a normal rule invoke the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act when the accused is convicted of the offence under Section 304-A of IPC in causing death of human beings by rash or negligent driving. Relevant paragraphs No.12 and 13 of the judgment read as under:-
"12. In State of Karnataka v. Krishna alias Raju (1987) 1 SCC 538 : (AIR 1987 SC 861 : 1987 Cri LJ 776) this Court did not allow a sentence of fine, imposed on a driver who was convicted under S. 304-A, I.P.C. to remain in force although the High Court too had confirmed the said sentence when an accused was convicted of the offence of driving a bus callously and causing death of a human being. In that case this Court enhanced the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for six months besides imposing a fine.
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 S. 304-A, I.P.C. as attracting the benevolent provisions of S. 4 of the PO 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 Crl. Revision No.1562 of 2001 -7- 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 causing death of a human being due to his callous driving of vehicle he cannot escape from 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."
14. This judgment was subsequently followed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in B.Nagabhushanam v. State of Karnataka, 2008(3) RCR (Crl.) 50 and the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act was denied to the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC.
15. Hence, there is no force in the argument of the learned counsel for the revision-petitioner that he deserves the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act. He has taken life of an innocent girl, who was on her left side of the road i.e. on Kacha path, by driving the car in rash and negligent manner and hence, merely on the ground that he is facing trial for the last about 17/18 years, it cannot be said that he deserves the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act. Even the authorities referred to above on which reliance has been placed on behalf of the revision-petitioner are not of any help to him in view of the authoritative pronounced by Hon'ble Apex Court in Dalbir Singh's case (supra) followed in B.Nagabhushanam's case (supra) and in view of peculiar facts the circumstances of the case as narrated above.
16. However, taking into consideration the fact that he is facing Crl. Revision No.1562 of 2001 -8- trial for the last 17/18 years and is not a previous convict, I am of the view that he deserves some leniency in the quantum of sentence.
17. Hence, sentence of imprisonment for one and half year awarded to the revision-petitioner by the courts below for offence under Section 304-A IPC is reduced to one year R.I. while maintaining the sentence of fine.
18. With this modification in the quantum of sentence, the present revision petition stands dismissed being devoid of any merit.
19. Bail bonds of the revision-petitioner stands cancelled. The concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate shall take necessary steps to comply with the judgment with due promptitude keeping in view the applicability of provision of Section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure and submit his compliance report within two months.
20. The District and Sessions Judge concerned is also directed to ensure that the directions are complied with and that compliance report is sent within the time limit, to this Court.
( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) November 10 , 2009. JUDGE 'om'