Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rameshwar Lal vs State Of Haryana on 23 May, 2012
Author: Ram Chand Gupta
Bench: Ram Chand Gupta
Crl.R.No.578 of 2006(O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Crl.R.No.578 of 2006(O&M)
Date of Decision: May 23, 2012
Rameshwar Lal .....Petitioner
v.
State of Haryana
......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr.Rishu Mahajan, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.Anmol Malik, AAG, Haryana
for respondent-State.
.......
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.
The present revision petition is directed against judgment dated 17.2.2006 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, vide which it dismissed the appeal against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.1.2005 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat, convicting present petitioner for offences under Sections 279, 337, 304A of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (for short `the IPC') and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 279 IPC; simple imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 337 IPC; and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of `.500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of ten days for offence unde Section 304A IPC.
Briefly stated, the case of prosecution is that on 17.4.1996, Crl.R.No.578 of 2006(O&M) -2- Dalbir and Shamsher (deceased) were going on motor-cycle bearing registration No.DL 2SH 3438 from Village Dahar to Israna for getting LPG Cylinder refilled. LPG Cylinder was tied on the back of the motor-cycle. Shamsher(deceased) was driving the motor-cycle, whereas Dalbir- complainant was the pillion rider. At about 5.00 p.m., they reached ahead of turn to village Balana near Naultha School, when a truck bearing registration No.RSA 5281 came from opposite direction, i.e., from the side of Israna. The truck was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner. After observing the coming truck in such a manner, Shamsher (deceased) had taken his motor-cycle towards kacha portion of the road on his left hand side, however, truck driver could not control the truck and had taken the same on the wrong side of the road. Dalbir- complainant could save himself after jumping from motor-cycle towards the ditches, where kikkar trees were also standing. The driver of the truck ran over the motor-cycle, which was badly damaged and Shamsher, driver of the motor-cycle sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the same at the spot. The truck also went towards ditches and got stuck there. Dalbir had a talk with the driver of the truck, who disclosed his name and address as Rameshwar Lal s/o Shri Kana Ram, resident of Mukandpura, Rajasthan, i.e., the present petitioner. However, when Dalbir started looking after Shamsher, Rameshwar Lal-petitioner succeeded in running from the spot. In the meantime, Dharam Singh and some other persons also reached the spot. Dalbir left Dharam Singh at the spot near the dead body of Shamsher and proceeded towards police station. On the way police party met him at bus stand Israna. Dalbir got recorded his statement to HC Chander Singh, Crl.R.No.578 of 2006(O&M) -3- who sent ruqa to the police station on the basis of which FIR was registered.
After completion of the investigation, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short `Cr.P.C.') was filed for trial of petitioner-accused for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304A IPC.
Learned trial Court charged the accused for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
In order to substantiate the allegations against the accused, prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses.
PW1 is Dalbir, injured complainant. PW2 is Dharam Singh, in whose presence dead body of Shamsher was taken into possession by the police. PW3 is Dr.P.K.Gandhi, who medico legally examined complainant Dalbir. PW4 is Constable Ravinder Singh. PW5 is Head Constable Chander Singh. PW6 is Head Constable Mukhtiar Singh. PW7 is Karambir and PW8 is Constable Wazir Singh.
Prosecution has also placed reliance upon documentary evidence, i.e., Ex.PA, the complaint lodged by Dalbir Singh-complainant; Ex.PW3/A, i.e., the medico legal examination report of complainant Dalbir Singh, as proved by PW3-Dr.P.K.Gandhi; Ex.PW4/A is the endorsement of Investigating Officer on the statement of complainant, on the basis of which FIR Ex.PW4/B was registered; Ex.PW4/C is the site plan of the place of occurrence prepared by Investigating Officer; Ex.PW4/D is the inquest proceedings prepared by Investigating Officer under Section 174 Cr.P.C; Exs.PW1/A, PW2/A and PW4/E are the memos of recovery and Ex.PW4/F Crl.R.No.578 of 2006(O&M) -4- is the application for getting postmortem on the dead body of the deceased conducted.
Statement of accused in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which he denied the incriminating evidence coming against him and pleaded innocence. However, no defence evidence was adduced by him.
On perusal of material on record, learned trial Court came to the conclusion that prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused for commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304A IPC beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt and hence, he was convicted and sentenced as aforementioned. Accused preferred appeal against the said judgment before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, and however, the same was also dismissed and hence the present revision petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel and have gone through the whole record carefully.
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 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 any reasonable shadow of doubt.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that Crl.R.No.578 of 2006(O&M) -5- identity of present petitioner-accused has not been established in this case. It has been contended that as per case of prosecution, petitioner-accused ran away from the place of occurrence and that he was not previously known to the complainant. It is further contended that no test identification parade was conduced and hence it is contended that identification of the accused for the first time in the Court is no identification in the eyes of law. It is contended that benefit of doubt should be given to petitioner-accused. It is also contended that case of prosecution is also based upon sole testimony of Dalbir-complainant and that other witness, namely, Dharam Singh PW2 has not supported the prosecution version on the point and rather he deposed that he reached the place of accident after the accident had already taken place and that he had not witnessed the accident. On the point he has also placed reliance upon Satpal v. State of Haryana 2000(2) RCR (Criminal) 720 and State of Punjab v. Balraj Singh 2000(1) RCR (Criminal) 822.
However, there is no force in this contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no rule of law that conviction cannot be based on the testimony of a single witness. Rather conviction can be based on testimony of single witness, if the same is reliable one. It is not the case of the prosecution that PW2 Dharam Singh has also witnessed the accident. Rather even as per the case of prosecution, Dharam Singh reached the place of occurrence after accident had already taken place. He had seen the truck involved in the accident and the dead body of deceased Shamsher Singh. The truck was taken into possession by Investigating Officer in his presence. Dead body was also taken into possession in his presence. He Crl.R.No.578 of 2006(O&M) -6- has supported the version of the complainant to the extent that the truck was found lying in the ditches on the wrong side of the road, which shows that the truck was being driven by petitioner-accused in rash and negligent manner and that he could not control the same and hit against the motor- cycle by taking the same on the wrong side of the road. FIR in this case was promptly lodged, i.e., just after one hour of the occurrence. Complainant has deposed that he enquired from the driver of the truck and that he himself disclosed his full name and address and the same was mentioned by him in the complaint made to the police. Hence, there was no time for the complainant to have falsely implicate the petitioner-accused in this case. Moreover, the truck is owned by petitioner-accused. His RC and driving licence were taken into possession by the police. He has not taken any such plea that truck was being driven by somebody else at the time of accident. Presence of Dalbir Singh complainant at the place of occurrence is also proved from the fact that he had also sustained injuries in this accident, which have been proved by medical evidence. Evidence of Dablir Singh is also corroborated by other circumstantial evidence. Hence, in this case prosecution has produced cogent and reliable oral as well as documentary evidence, which inspires confidence of this Court.
Both the Courts below have come to the conclusion that deposition of complainant Dalbir Singh inspires confidence. He was having no enmity against present petitioner-accused and there is nothing as to why he should have deposed falsely against him.
In this case there was sufficient time for the complainant to see driver of the truck after the accident. He also had a talk with him. Crl.R.No.578 of 2006(O&M) -7- Petitioner-accused himself told him his name and complete address. It was only thereafter that he fled away. Hence, there was no need of any test identification parade in this case and the case of prosecution cannot be doubted on this ground. Hence, Satpal's case (supra) and Balraj Singh's case (supra), on which reliance has been placed on behalf of the petitioner- accused, are of no help to him.
Hence the judgment of conviction passed by learned trial Court and judgment of learned appellate Court, dismissing appeal do not suffer from any illegality and the same are upheld.
So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he is facing trial since the year 1996, i.e., for the last about 16 years and that he is not a previous convict and hence, it is contended that he should be granted benefit of Probation under the Probation of Offenders Act.
Law on the point as to whether the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act should be granted to the accused convicted for offence under Section 304-A IPC, has been settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Dalbir Singh vs. 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 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 Crl.L.J. 776) this Crl.R.No.578 of 2006(O&M) -8- Court did not allow a sentence of fine, imposed on a driver who was convicted under S.304-A IPC 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 imposed 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 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 of 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."
This judgment was subsequently followed by the Hon'ble Crl.R.No.578 of 2006(O&M) -9- 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.
In the present case petitioner-accused has taken away life of an innocent person and injured another by driving his vehicle in rash and negligent manner. Petitioner-accused had to remain present at the spot for some time as his truck was stuck in the ditches after the accident and he also had a talk with complainant and, however, instead of extending him a helping hand in attending the deceased and the injured complainant, he ran away after complainant started looking after the deceased. Hence, he does not deserve the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- accused that taking into consideration the protracted nature of the trial, he be shown leniency in the quantum of sentence and he be ordered to undergo sentence already undergone by him during trial of this case. It is further contended that petitioner has undergone three months and twelve days of sentence.
However, in this case present revision petitioner had already been treated with leniency by the Courts below. He was only sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year for offence under Section 304A IPC.
In State of Karnataka v. Sharanappa Basnagouda Aregoudar 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) 271, in the matter of imprisonment of sentence upon accused convicted for offence under Section 304A IPC, it was observed as under:-
Crl.R.No.578 of 2006(O&M) -10-
"6. We are of the view that having regard to the serious nature of the accident, which resulted in the death of four persons, the learned Single Judge should not have interfered with the sentence imposed by the Court below. It may create and set an unhealthy precedent and send wrong signals to the Courts which have to deal with several such accident cases. If the accused are found guilty of rash and negligent driving, courts have to be on guard to ensure that they do not escape the clutches of law very lightly. The sentence imposed by the courts should have deterrent effect on potential wrong-doers and it should commensurate with the seriousness of the offence. Of course, the Courts are given discretion in the matter of sentence to take stock of the wide and varying range of facts that might be relevant for fixing the quantum of sentence, but the discretion shall be exercised with due regard to larger interest of the society and it is needless to add that passing of sentence on the offender is probably the most public face of the criminal justice system."
Hence, in view of peculiar facts of this case, as discussed above, no further leniency in the matter of sentence is also warranted. For the reasons recorded above, the present revision petition being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.
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 provisions of Section 428 Cr.P.C.
23.5.2012 (Ram Chand Gupta)
meenu Judge
Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter? Yes/No.