Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hanuman Parshad vs State Of U.T. Chandigarh on 11 March, 2014
Author: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
Bench: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
Criminal Revn.No. 306 of 2014 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revn.No. 306 of 2014 (O&M)
Date of Decision: March 11, 2014
Hanuman Parshad .......Petitioner
Versus
State of U.T. Chandigarh .......Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA
Present:
Present Mr.Hitesh Pandit, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.Sukant Gupta, Addl.P.P., U.T., Chandigarh.
<><><>
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.
In the light of judgment dated 12.3.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh and order of sentence of even date, the petitioner stands convicted for the offences under Sections 279/337/338/304-A of the Indian Penal Code and was awarded sentence in the following terms:
U. Section 279 of IPC The accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months along with a Fine of `500/-. In default of payment of fine the accused shall have to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days.
U. Section 337 of IPC The accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months along with a Fine of `500/-. In default of payment of fine the accused shall have to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days.
U. Section 338 of IPC The accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months along with a Fine of `500/-. In default of payment of fine the accused shall have to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days.
U. Section 304-A of The accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous IPC imprisonment for a period of one year along with a Fine of `500/-. In default of payment of fine the accused shall have to further undergo Malik Sushama Rani rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. 2014.03.27 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Revn.No. 306 of 2014 (O&M) 2
The sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. The appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Chandigarh vide order dated 12.12.2013. Conviction of the petitioner has been upheld but the sentence awarded by the trial Court for offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code has been reduced from rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year to ten months.
3. The present revision petition is directed against the concurrent findings of the Courts below. It would be apposite to notice that at the stage of preliminary hearing itself, learned counsel for the petitioner has made a statement that he is not pressing the revision petition and does not assail the conviction on merits and confined the scope of the revision petition only as regards consideration of some leniency in the quantum of sentence. Notice of motion order dated 29.1.2014 reads in the following terms:
"It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he does not want to press this revision petition so far as judgment of conviction as passed by learned trial Court and affirmed by learned appellate Court is concerned. However, he requests that petitioner deserves some leniency in the quantum of sentence.
Notice of motion qua quantum of sentence only for 3.3.2014."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner has been facing trial since 2007 and is the sole Malik Sushama Rani 2014.03.27 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Revn.No. 306 of 2014 (O&M) 3 bread earner of the family and is a driver by profession. Learned counsel would submit that the entire family is solely dependent upon income of the petitioner and under such mitigating circumstances, a lenient view be taken on the issue of quantum of sentence.
5. Learned counsel appearing for U.T. Chandigarh would oppose the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner by stating that a precious life has been lost and as such, there would be no scope for interference by this Court under its limited revisional jurisdiction.
6. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard.
7. Brief facts are that on 5.12.2006 upon receiving a wireless message from the control room regarding an accident at Tribune Chowk, Chandigarh, Sub Inspector Sukh Ram along with other police officials reached the spot whereupon Head Constable Baldev Singh got his statement recorded that he was present on beat duty near Tribune Chowk, Sector 31, Chandigarh and at about 7.40 p.m., one Qualis vehicle came at a very fast speed from the Poultry Farm chowk side and such vehicle struck into a cycle which was going towards Sector 32. In such accident, the two persons on the cycle fell down and sustained injuries. One of such persons disclosed his name as Sanjiv Kumar son of Krishan Lal and the name of the other was disclosed as Rakesh Kumar son of Ghanshyam Dass. The registration number of Qualis vehicle was taken down as CH03D-1913 and the driver of such vehicle had disclosed his name as Hanuman Parshad son of Shri Ram (present petitioner). Injured Sanjiv Kumar and Rakesh Kumar Malik Sushama Rani 2014.03.27 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Revn.No. 306 of 2014 (O&M) 4 were taken to Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, in a PCR vehicle where Rakesh Kumar succumbed to the injuries that he suffered in the accident. Prosecution version set up was that the accident had been caused due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle in question being driven by the Driver i.e. the present petitioner.
8. Upon cogent and convincing evidence having been led, the Courts below have convicted the petitioner in the manner described hereinabove. In any case, the conviction of the petitioner is not being assailed on merits.
9. Insofar as quantum of sentence is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that there would be no scope of interference. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana, 2000(2) RCR (Criminal) 816 in a matter relating to a driver having been found guilty of rash driving had made the following observations:
"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 P.O. 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 Malik Sushama Rani 2014.03.27 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Revn.No. 306 of 2014 (O&M) 5 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 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."
10. Even though the observations made in Dalbir Singh's case (supra) were in regard to denying the benefit of benevolent provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to a driver having been convicted for the offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, the observations would be relevant even with regard to rejection of a prayer seeking indulgence as regards quantum of sentence. In the facts of the present case, the lower Appellate Court has already taken a lenient view and has reduced the sentence awarded under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code by the trial Court from one year rigorous imprisonment to Malik Sushama Rani 2014.03.27 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Revn.No. 306 of 2014 (O&M) 6 ten months rigorous imprisonment.
11. For the reasons recorded above, no basis for interference is made out. Revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
( TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA )
MARCH 11, 2014 JUDGE
SRM
Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter? (Yes/No)
Malik Sushama Rani
2014.03.27 10:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document