Punjab-Haryana High Court
Janki Ram vs State (Ut on 11 March, 2010
Author: Jora Singh
Bench: Jora Singh
Crl.Revision No.1633 of 2004 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Revision No.1633 of 2004
Date of decision: 11.3.2010
Janki Ram ... Petitioner
versus
State (UT, Chandigarh) ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH.
Present: Mr.Vijay Pal, Advocate, for
Girish Agnihotri, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Rajiv Sharma, Advocate, for UT, Chandigarh.
...
JORA SINGH, J.
Janki Ram son of Shingaru Ram, revisionist, was sent up for trial by the SHO, Police Station, Manimajra, Chandigarh, on the allegation that on 8.7.2000 near Sukhna Bridge, Manimajra, there was an accident due to rash and negligent driving of Bus No.HP-14-3558, by the petitioner and in that accident, death was of Ashi. Vide judgment dated 20.8.2002, petitioner was convicted under Sections 279/304-A IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for one month under Section 304-A IPC and to undergo RI for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for fifteen days under Section 279 IPC.
After the judgment of conviction/order of sentence, appeal was preferred but the same was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, by reducing the sentence under Section 304-A IPC to nine months instead of one year, vide judgment dated 2.8.2004 under challenge.
Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Crl.Revision No.1633 of 2004 2 Prosecution Story, in brief, is that on 8.9.2000, wireless message was received from control room regarding accident near Sukhna Bridge, Manimajra. On receipt of information, ASI Naveen Sharma came to the spot. Dead body of a girl was found near the spot. Karan Panda met ASI Naveen Sharma and got recorded his statement to the effect that his sister Ashi was studying in Fine Arts College, Chandigarh. Today in the morning, he along with his sister had left the house on different scooters. His sister was on her Kinetic Honda No.CH-03-C-5125 and he was on his scooter No.CH-01-X-5371. His sister was ahead of him. At about 8.15 AM when they were near Sukhna Bridge, Manimajra, then Bus No.HP-14-3558 came from the back side. Bus was being driven rashly and negligently and without blowing horn struck against the scooter of his sister from back side. His sister fell down from the scooter and was ran over by the bus. Bus was stopped near the place of accident and on enquiry, driver of the bus disclosed his name as Janki Ram son of Shingaru Ram. Accident was witnessed by Rashi Kakkar, who was also studying in Fine Arts College. After recording statement of Karan Panda, same was read over and explained to him. He has signed the same in token of its correctness. After making endorsement, statement was sent to the police station, on the basis of which, formal FIR was recorded. After arranging a Photographer, photographs were got clicked. Rough site plan with correct marginal notes was prepared. Inquest report was also prepared. Dead body was sent to the hospital for postmortem examination. Scooter of the deceased and the offending vehicle driven by the petitioner were taken into police possession vide separate memos attested by the witnesses. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in Court.
Crl.Revision No.1633 of 2004 3
Petitioner was charged under Sections 279/304-A IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution examined PW1 Kishore Chander, father of the deceased, PW2 Karan Pandey, PW3 ASI Naveen Sharma, PW4 Shiv Ram, Constable, PW5 Constable Gian Singh, PW6 Constable Rajpal and PW7 Constable Ramesh Chander.
After close of the prosecution evidence, statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Petitioner denied all the prosecution allegations and pleaded to be innocent. Defence version of the petitioner was that he was innocent and falsely implicated in this case.
In defence, DW1 Rashul Khan and DW2 Jai Gopal appeared and stated that they were travelling in Bus No.HP-14-3558. At about 7.45 AM, bus was near railway crossing point. Dead body was noticed lying on the road. Accident was with some other vehicle. Bus was stopped by Janki Ram. Police came to the spot and was informed that the accident was not with the bus driven by Janki Ram.
After hearing learned Public Prosecutor for the State and defence counsel for the petitioner and from the perusal of evidence on record, petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the lower Court as stated aforesaid. Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, appeal was preferred but the same was dismissed subject to modification on the point of sentence.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and State and gone through the evidence on the file.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that on 8.9.2000, petitioner was driver on Bus No.HP-14-3558 and the bus was going from Crl.Revision No.1633 of 2004 4 the side of Pinjore towards Chandigarh. At about 8.30 AM, bus was near railway crossing point. Dead body of one girl was found lying on the road. Accident was with some other vehicle. Bus was stopped by the petitioner, but he was taken into custody. As per photographs on the file, accident was not with Bus No.HP-14-3558 and this fact is clear from the statements of DWs, who were travelling in the same bus, but to solve blind murder, petitioner was implicated. Occurrence was on 8.9.2000. Petitioner is the first offender and belongs to a poor family. In case the Court is of the opinion that accident was due to rash and negligent driving of Bus No.HP- 14-3558 driven by the petitioner, then lenient view may be taken because the petitioner remained in custody for about one month and twenty three days as on 22.2.2010, as per custody certificate produced by learned State counsel, and the petitioner is ready to compensate the complainant party, otherwise he is to loose job.
Learned State counsel argued that the deceased was a student and on the day of occurrence, she was going to attend her college. Complainant was following his sister. There was an accident but dispute is whether accident was due to rash and negligent driving of Bus No.HP-14- 3558 by the petitioner or with some other vehicle. Before present occurrence, petitioner had no enmity with the complainant party. Complainant party was not related to the police, so there was no idea to implicate the petitioner by leaving real culprit. Petitioner along with offending vehicle was arrested on the spot. At the time of mechanical test, dent was noticed on the front bumper of the bus. No explanation how this dent on the front bumper of the bus had occurred, if there was no accident. DWs appeared in the Court for the first time and stated that there was no Crl.Revision No.1633 of 2004 5 accident by Bus No.HP-14-3558 driven by the petitioner. Evidence on the file was rightly scrutinized by the trial Court.
Case of the prosecution is that on 8.9.2000, Ashi on her Kinetic Honda No.CH-03-C-5125 was going to her college. Karan Panda, brother of Ashi, on his scooter, was following her. Accident was near railway crossing point. According to DWs, dead body of a girl was noticed while lying on the road, but the accident was with some other vehicle. Bus No.HP-14-3558 driven by the petitioner was stopped. Police came to the spot and was informed that the accident was with some other vehicle. But defence version seems to be not correct one. Petitioner when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., then stated that he was falsely implicated, but he has not stated a word that when he noticed dead body lying on the road, then bus was stopped. Accident was with some other vehicle. Contrary to the statement of the petitioner, DWs stated that they were in the bus driven by the petitioner, but accident was with some other vehicle and not with Bus No.HP-14-3558 driven by the petitioner. Firstly, no proof on the file that tickets produced by the DWs were issued to the passengers travelling in Bus No.HP-14-3558 on 8.9.2000. Conductor of the bus did not appear in defence with record to state that while going to Chandigarh from Shimla side, tickets produced by the DWs were issued to the passengers of Bus No.HP-14-3558 driven by Janki Ram, petitioner. In case we presume that DWs were travelling in the bus driven by the petitioner, then question is whether accident was with some other vehicle. For the first time, DWs appeared in the Court and stated that there was no accident with Bus No.HP-14-3558. Police came to the spot and if accident was not with Bus No.HP-14-3558 and the petitioner was falsely implicated in this case, then Crl.Revision No.1633 of 2004 6 DWs should have appeared before the authorities and sent complaints. Conductor of the bus did not appear to state that there was no accident with the bus driven by the petitioner. Petitioner was arrested on the spot and was named in the FIR, but the petitioner is silent till today and no complaint to any authority. If the accident was with some other vehicle and the petitioner had stopped Bus No.HP-14-3558 near the place of occurrence, then there was no idea to name the petitioner and arrest him on the spot, when complainant party was not inimical towards the petitioner and had no friendship with the police.
Bus No.HP-14-3558 driven by the petitioner was taken into police possession. Mechanic had mechanically tested the bus and as per report of the Mechanic (Ex.PS), dent was noticed on the left side of front bumper. When there was no accident with Bus No.HP-14-3558, then question is how dent was noticed on the left side of front bumper. Petitioner being the driver was to explain how dent had occurred on the left side of bumper at any stage.
After the accident, bus was stopped. Petitioner had disclosed his name. Accident was at about 8.30 AM. Statement of the complainant was recorded at 9.05 AM. In the statement, complainant had disclosed about the name of driver of Bus No.HP-14-3558. As discussed earlier, when there was no accident with Bus No.HP-14-3558, then why petitioner had disclosed his name. After accident, petitioner was taken into custody but no hue and cry. There was no idea to remain silent. Report of the mechanic, and arrest of the petitioner on the spot immediately after the occurrence, when he was named in the FIR, coupled with the statement of the complainant, who had witnessed the occurrence, shows that evidence on Crl.Revision No.1633 of 2004 7 the file was rightly scrutinized by the trial Court to opine that Bus No.HP- 14-3558 was being driven rashly and negligently and has caused an accident, in which Ashi had received multiple grievous injuries and died on the spot.
Next submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that occurrence was on 8.9.2000. Petitioner was 47 years' old at that time. Now he is about 57 years' old and is to retire after one year. Petitioner has already undergone one month and twenty three days as on 22.2.2010. Before the occurrence, petitioner had no enmity with the complainant party. Intention was not to murder but death was due to rash and negligent driving of Bus No.HP-14-3558 by the petitioner.
Keeping in view the circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be fully met if lenient view is taken. Hence, instead of directing the petitioner to undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court, he is directed to be released on probation on furnishing probation bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of like amount to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year, and to deposit Rs.50,000/- more payable as compensation to the father/mother of the deceased, before the trial Court within two months, failing which revision petition would stand dismissed automatically. After deposit of Rs.50,000/-, trial Court is to inform father/mother of Ashi (deceased) to collect the payment as compensation.
With the modification aforesaid, revision stands dismissed.
11.3.2010 ( JORA SINGH ) pk JUDGE