Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harjinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 4 October, 2011
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2398 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 04, 2011
Harjinder Singh
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab
....Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRESENT: Mr. M.S.Sidhu, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
The petitioner stands convicted by the Trial Court for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of `1,000/- for his conviction for offence under Section 304A IPC. In case of default, the petitioner was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The petitioner has also been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of six months for his conviction CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2398 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 2 }:
for offences under Sections 337 and 279 IPC. The appeal filed by the petitioner is dismissed and the petitioner is presently undergoing the sentence.
As per the prosecution case, Head Constable Gurdeep Singh and Constable Rajwinder Singh had proceeded towards Minerva Academy after receiving report that an accident had taken place in the vicinity of the Academy near Village Daun. Reaching the place, they found one motorcycle lying in the middle of the road. Head Constable Gurdeep Singh had thrown a torch light towards the motor cycle while standing on the footpath. At that time, three persons were seen making an attempt to remove the motorcycle from the centre of the road to one side. Head Constables Surjit Singh and Tulsi Ram also reached there. At that time, only an Ambulance bearing Registration No.PB-12-C-1876 was seen approaching from Mohali side. The ambulance was being driven at a very fast speed and came and hit Head Constable Gurdeep Singh and the three persons who were in the process of dragging the motorcycle on to one side of the road. All the persons received multiple injuries. Head Constable Gurdeep Singh died on the spot. After causing this accident, the ambulance struck against a wall on the left side after traversing some distance besides hitting into an electric pole. The impact was so great that the wall collapsed and electric pole got tilted. The driver of the ambulance, Harjinder Singh and the occupants also received multiple injuries. Injured were shifted to Civil Hospital, Kharar. Head Constable Gurdeep Singh and one Satish Kumar were declared brought in dead by the doctor. Injured were referred to P.G.I. for further treatment. The driver of the ambulance CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2398 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 3 }:
and injured occupants of the ambulance vehicle also reached hospital. One Avtar Singh also succumbed to his injuries and on this basis, FIR was registered, leading to trial and conviction of the petitioner for the offences as already noticed.
The prosecution examined 12 witnesses in support of its case. The petitioner pleaded false implication and prayed that he was innocent. He did not lead any evidence in defence.
The main argument advanced by counsel for the petitioner is that there was no evidence to prove the identity of the driver of the ambulance. The same submission was made before the Appellate Court. In this regard, reference is made to the statement of Constable Rajwinder Singh, who supported the prosecution in examination-in-chief. However, during his cross-examination he stated that when the ambulance had come to a halt after hitting the wall, one person standing near the vehicle was taken as driver by him. Plea is that there were 4 to 5 persons in the ambulance and the evidence would show that the incident happened so quickly and suddenly that it was not possible for the witnesses to see who was driving the offending vehicle. Strangely, the petitioner also pleads that there is no evidence to show rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the ambulance. As per the defence, the person removing the motorcycle from the middle of the road should have taken due precaution and should have placed some reflector so that the driver of the vehicle approaching the scene could notice their presence. This line of argument is not only misplaced but is misconceived in law as well.
In a way, the petitioner has pleaded a contributory CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2398 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 4 }:
negligence on the part of the deceased and injured persons, which is no defence against the criminal liability for an offence under Section 304A IPC. The principles of liability governing civil action based on negligence differ from those governing criminal liability. The rule of contributory negligence, which may be a good defence in civil action, has no place in an indictment for criminal negligence. Once it is established that accused person has caused the death of any person by a negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, then contributory negligence on the part of the deceased is irrelevant. Criminal negligence is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which having regard to all the circumstances, out of which the charge has arisen, it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted. While driving the vehicle on road, the petitioner was expected to drive so with due care and caution and the manner of accident whereby the ambulance not only mowed down the deceased but had traversed a fair amount of distance and came to halt after striking against pole and a wall with such an impact, that the wall collapsed. The rashness or negligence is writ large in this case. The plea of the petitioner that there was no rashness or negligence on his part, thus, deserves to be rejected with contempt.
Constable Rajwinder Singh otherwise had identified the petitioner as driver of the offending vehicle but introduced some change in his version while under cross-examination. He appears to have made a subtle attempt to help the petitioner. As per this witness, the petitioner was taken as a Driver as he found him CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2398 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 5 }:
standing near the vehicle immediately after the accident. The other occupants of the ambulance vehicle had got out of the vehicle after the accident. Harvinder Singh is appointed as a Driver in the Civil Hospital, Kurali. The petitioner is Harjinder Singh and was found smelling of alcohol and made an attempt to give another twist to the story by saying that Harvinder Singh is the name of other driver engaged by Civil Hospital, Kurali. The version of Inspector Sakattar Singh PW11, however, would belly the stand of the defence as petitioner was admitted in the hospital and PW11 had obtained the medical opinion about fitness of the petitioner to make statement. The petitioner was placed under arrest in the hospital itself. His driving licence was taken in possession and the name of the petitioner was mentioned as Harjinder Singh. The evidence coupled with documentary evidence and the entries in the log book, which was produced in evidence, would show that the petitioner on being detailed had left the hospital with a log book from Kurali for taking one Gurdev Singh to PGI. Said entry bears the signature of the petitioner. Other occupants of the ambulance vehicle were shown to have accompanied injured Gurdev Singh. This would be sufficient to establish that the petitioner was detailed as a driver of the vehicle and he alone was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. Harvinder Singh may be another driver but he was not seen at the scene. The injuries to the petitioner would not only prove his presence but would give lie to his false defence of other driver thereof.
Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations made, the sentence awarded appears just and reasonable. Even CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2398 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 6 }:
otherwise, the counsel for the petitioner has not pleaded for any leniency on any ground whatsoever.
The petition is, thus, dismissed.
October 04, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE