Punjab-Haryana High Court
Charanjit Sharma vs State Of Punjab on 25 March, 2014
CRR No.494 of 2006 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, AT
CHANDIGARH
*****
CRR No.494 of 2006
Date of Decision : 25.03.2014
Charanjit Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN
Present : Mr. Mohnish Sharma, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. A.P.S.Gill, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab,
for the respondent-State.
MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL)
The petitioner was arraigned as an accused in FIR No.1 dated 07.01.1998, recorded at Police Station, Bassi Pathanan, District Fatehgarh Sahib, under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (for short, 'IPC'). After investigation, a report, in terms of Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.'), was presented before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fatehgarh Sahib (for short, 'trial Court'), who, after compliance of provisions of Section 207, Cr.P.C., afforded an opportunity of hearing to the prosecution and the defence and having found a prima facie case triable under Sections 279 and 304-A, IPC, to be made out against the petitioner, framed a charge in writing against him. The petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial which impelled the prosecution to examine as many as seven witnesses in support of the charge. Virendra singh adhikari 2014.03.29 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRR No.494 of 2006 -2-
On close of evidence of the prosecution, learned trial Court questioned the petitioner generally on the evidence available on record so as to afford him an opportunity to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution, as required by Section 313, Cr.P.C. However, the petitioner denied all the circumstances as false and incorrect and reiterated plea of his innocence and false implication but did not lead any evidence in his defence.
On hearing the prosecutor and the defence and in view of the circumstances of the case, learned trial Court formulated following points for determination, as to whether:-
"i) it was accused who was driving Maruti Van in
question at the time of accident?
ii) accident was caused due to rash or negligent driving
of Maruti Van by the accused?
iii) deceased had died as a result of injuries received in the accident?
iv) PWs Pargat Singh and Kashmira Singh were present at the spot and had witnessed the occurrence?"
In view of the submissions made at the bar and the evidence available on record, learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution was able to prove guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt and, accordingly, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.04.2002, convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year besides payment of fine amounting to Rs.300/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 304-A, IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for six months Virendra singh adhikari 2014.03.29 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRR No.494 of 2006 -3- besides payment of fine amounting to Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 279, IPC.
Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.04.2002 were challenged by the petitioner by way of Criminal Appeal No.22 of 05.06.2002, which after contest, was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib (for short, 'appellate Court'), vide judgment dated 07.02.2006.
Having lost before the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court, the petitioner has, now, approached this Court under Sections 397/401, Cr.P.C., with a prayer that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.04.2002 and judgment dated 07.02.2006 dismissing his appeal be set aside and he be acquitted of the offences of which he has been charged and convicted.
State is contesting the petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent-State, besides going through the record of the case.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the occurrence took place on a foggy night and, as such, it was more an act of God than an act of negligence of the petitioner and, as such, he is entitled to acquittal. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner has a Virendra singh adhikari 2014.03.29 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRR No.494 of 2006 -4- small daughter and he is the only bread winner of the family and for that reason, deserves leniency. The learned counsel prays that concession of probation may be extended to the petitioner. The prayer, however, is opposed by the learned State Counsel on the plea that the occurrence has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and in view of the fact that a precious life has been pre-maturely terminated for reasons attributable to the petitioner, benefit of probation cannot be extended to him.
Nothing more has been urged on either side.
The prosecution had approached the learned trial Court on the allegation that on the night of 07.01.1998, Kashmira Singh was being taken to hospital by Pargat Singh on a motorcycle bearing registration No.MXB-1907. Pargat Singh drove the motorcycle and Kashmira Singh was on the pillion. Harinder Singh accompanied them on a separate scooter bearing registration No.PB-10-H-4150. They had just crossed the cremation ground of Bassi Pathanan and were going on left side of the road when a Maruti Van (for short, 'Van') came from the opposite side being driven at a very high speed and in a zig-zag manner. Pargat Singh slowed down his motorcycle and within their sight, the van came towards wrong side of the road being driven in a rash and negligent manner and hit the scooter, which Harinder Singh was driving. On account of the hit, even the Van turned on one side of the road. Pargat Singh stopped the motorcycle and found that Harinder Singh had received multiple injuries on his face and blood was profusely oozing. He died after some time Virendra singh adhikari 2014.03.29 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRR No.494 of 2006 -5- on the spot. However, when Pargat Singh and Kashmira Singh were taking care of the deceased, the petitioner was able to make good his escape from the spot.
Having been informed of the occurrence, police came into action. Investigation Officer recorded statement of the complainant, inspected the spot and recorded statements of witnesses. On completion of investigation and necessary formalities, a report under Section 173(2), Cr.P.C., was filed before the learned trial Court as stated here-in-before.
The contention put up on behalf of the petitioner that it was a foggy night and the accident was result of an act of God and not that of negligence of the petitioner is not borne out from the evidence available on record and besides this no procedural or jurisdictional error in the judgments of the courts below has been pointed out on behalf of the petitioner.
Pargat Singh, an eye-witness of the occurrence, appeared before the learned trial Court as PW2 and proved the occurrence, through and through. He was able to pass the litmus test of cross-examination successfully. He has also proved his statement, Exhibit PA, made before the police on the basis of which the FIR was recorded. Another witness of the occurrence, PW3- Kashmira Singh, has supported version put-forth by PW2-Pargat Singh, verbatim. He too has been able to pass the acid test of cross-examination successfully. Both the afore-stated witnesses identified the petitioner before the learned trial Court as author of the occurrence. Virendra singh adhikari 2014.03.29 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRR No.494 of 2006 -6-
As regards the prayer for grant of benefit of probation to the petitioner, suffice it to say that the petitioner only to satisfy his urge for fast and negligent driving, has claimed a precious life. The deceased, incidentally, happened to be a police official. The lives lost in the road accident, unfortunately, are more in number than natural deaths and the incidents of road accidents are increasing day by day. Reasons behind this increase in such kind of incidents, in my view, is attributable to some extent to a feeling in the minds of the drivers of the automobiles that, firstly, they would run away from the spot after causing the accident and in the eventuality of being caught, they would either be acquitted or would be let off with minor punishment or even after grant of benefit of probation. Therefore, petitioner is found not entitled to the concession of probation. Rather, in my view, the courts below have erred towards leniency.
Consequently, there appears no ground to interfere with the judgments of the courts below.
Dismissed.
(MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN) JUDGE 25.03.2014 adhikari Virendra singh adhikari 2014.03.29 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh