Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parties Name vs State Of Haryana on 16 February, 2009
Author: Jasbir Singh
Bench: Jasbir Singh
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 230 OF 2002 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
DATE OF DECISION: February 16, 2009.
Parties Name
Ramesh Kumar
..PETITIONER
VERSUS
State of Haryana
...RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
PRESENT: Mr. Harish Bhardwaj, Advocate,
for Mr. Harkesh Manuja,
Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S.Randhawa, Addl. A.G., Haryana
JASBIR SINGH, J. (oral)
JUDGMENT:
It is allegation against the petitioner that on July 3, 1993, by driving a truck / Dumper No. DEG 1073 in a rash and negligent manner, he hit the car bearing No. DDD 9278. Five occupants of the car were injured. One of them Ajit Singh died in Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi, on July 15, 2003. Vide judgment and order dated February 8, 2000, and February 9, 2000, respectively passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sonepat, petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- for an offence under Section 304 -A IPC with a default clause. He was also awarded minor punishments for offences under Sections 279 and 337 IPC. CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 230 OF 2002 -2- He went in appeal, which was dismissed on December 3, 2001. Hence this revision petition.
The prosecution story, as noticed by the trial Judge, is that "on July 3, 1993, ASI Sube Singh was on patrolling duty along with Head Constable Ram Phal and Constable Pale Ram at G.T. Road, near Ganaur Chowk. He received an information that a car has met with an accident with a truck near village Ladsoli and the injured has been taken to the Civil Hospital, Sonepat. On reaching to the hospital, he made an application to the doctor for permission to record the statement but he was told that the injured has been referred to the hospital at Delhi. Thereafter on 4.7.1993, he went to the Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital at Delhi and the Doctor reported that the injured Lal Singh is in a position to make the statement. In his statement, Lal Singh son of Sardar Bhagat Singh disclosed that he is running a motor spare parts shop in Delhi. On 3.7.1993, he along with his wife Mahender Kaur, son Kuljit Singh, daughter-in-law Surinder Kaur and two grand children Naini @ Gangan Deep and Nancy along with his brother-in-law Ajit Singh started for Shahbad Markanda to attend a religious function of Baba Dalel Singh in his car No. DDD 9278. He was driving the vehicle and after attending the religious function at Shabad, they started for Delhi at about 5.00 p.m. When they reached near village Ladsoli in their car at about 8.15 p.m., a Dumper having registration No. DEG 1073 suddenly stopped and the driver turned it reversed without any indication, signal or horn. The Dumper / truck struck with his car and the car got damaged. All the passengers sustained injuries. His wife sustained injuries on chest, Ajit Singh on both hands and legs as well as on the face, Surinder Kaur on the head and eyes, Kuljit Singh on the head and chest. He sustained CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 230 OF 2002 -3- injuries on his hands and chest. His grand children Nancy and Gagan Deep also sustained injuries. The driver disclosed his name as Ramesh son of Dei Ram, resident of Ladsoli."
After the above said accident, injured were taken to Civil Hospital at Sonepat. Taking note of their serious condition, they were referred to a Hospital in New Delhi. On statement made by Lal Singh (PW1), formal FIR No. 246 was registered against the petitioner on July 4, 1993. On completion of investigation, final report was put in Court for trial. Petitioner was charge-sheeted to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution produced eleven witnesses and also brought on record documentary evidence to prove its case. On conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he refuted allegations levelled against him, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, despite availing number of opportunities, he failed to lead any evidence in defence. The trial Court, on appraisal of evidence and hearing counsel for the parties, convicted and sentenced the petitioner as mentioned in earlier part of this order.
Shri Harish Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner made an attempt to assail the impugned judgment on merits by making reference to minor discrepancies here and there in the statements made by the prosecution witnesses. This Court feels that discrepancies, indicated by him, were not material and fatal to the case of the prosecution. It is apparent from the record that a vivid account of the occurrence has been given by the eye witnesses. In the accident, which was result of rash and negligent driving by the petitioner, five occupants of the car were injured, one of whom, namely, Ajit Singh died thereafter. Lengthy cross-examination of the prosecution CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 230 OF 2002 -4- witnesses has failed to shatter their testimony. Recording of FIR was very prompt in this case.
Faced with the above situation, Shri Harish Bhardwaj, Advocate, stated that in view of lapse of time, lenient view be taken in the case of the petitioner. Accident had occurred in the year 1993. Petitioner has already undergone about three months of actual sentence. He further stated that the petitioner is a poor man, he was working as a Driver on the offending vehicle. He is the only bread winner of his family. If at this stage, he is sent behind the Bars, his entire family would suffer. He also brought to the notice of this Court that after the accident in question, the petitioner has not committed any such like other offence. He further assured this Court that as in the past, in future also the petitioner would drive the vehicle in a very careful and cautious manner. By stating as above, prayer has been made to grant benefit of probation to the petitioner.
Prayer made by counsel for the petitioner has been vehemently opposed by the State counsel. He stated that the rash and negligent driving has virtually become a habit of the truck Drivers and if leniency is shown to the petitioner, it will encourage others to commit similar offences. He further stated that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is in proportion to the offence committed by him. He prayed that the revision petition be dismissed.
After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the purpose of Criminal Law justice is not only to bring peace , discipline and harmony in the Society but is also to give an opportunity to an erring individual to reform himself. Keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case, especially a fact that the accident had taken place in the year 1993, CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 230 OF 2002 -5- the petitioner has suffered agony of trial, appeal and this revision petition, is also pending since the year 2002, this Court is of the opinion that he deserves lenient treatment. He has grown up family members and if sent in jail at this stage, it is likely to prove counter productive. He is a first offender.
Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) , 2001(9) Supreme Court 161, in paragraph No. 7, observed as under:-
"Punishment in criminal cases is both punitive and reformative. The purpose is that the person found guilty of committing the offence is made to realise his fault and is deterred from repeating such acts in future. The reformative aspect is meant to enable the person concerned to relent and repeat for his action and make himself acceptable to the society as a useful social being. In determining the question of proper punishment in a criminal case, the court has to weigh the degree of culpability of the accused. Its effect on others and the desirability of showing any leniency in the matter of punishment in the case. An act of balancing is, what is needed in such case: a balance between the interest of the individual and the concern of the society: weighing the one against the other. Imposing a hard punishment on the accused serves a limited purpose but at the same time, it is to be kept in mind that relevance of deterrent punishment in matters of serious crimes affecting society should not be undermined. Within the parameters of the law, an attempt has to be made to afford an opportunity to the CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 230 OF 2002 -6- individual to reform himself and lead the life of a normal, useful member of society and make his contribution in that regard. Denying such opportunity to a person who has been found to have committed offence in the facts and circumstances placed on record would only have a hardening attitude towards his fellow beings and towards society at large. Such a situation has to be avoided, again within the permissible limits of law."
Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon two judgments of the Supreme Court in Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab, 1982 CAR 280(SC) and Aitha Chander Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1982 C.A.R. 5 (SC), and also upon a Single Bench judgment of this Court in Criminal Revision No. 21 of 2002 ( Gurdial Singh v. State of Punjab), rendered on February 10, 2009, to contend that petitioner be given a chance to reform by releasing him on probation.
Keeping in view facts and circumstances of this case and ratio of the aforesaid judgments, conviction is upheld. However, sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner is set aside and he is ordered to be released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, for a period of six months. Keeping in view ratio of the judgment in Gurdial Singh's case (supra) and to settle equity between the parties, fine imposed is enhanced to Rs. 50,000/-. The petitioner is directed to deposit the amount of fine with the trial Court within three months from today and on deposit so being made, trial Court will issue notice to the legal heirs of deceased Ajit Singh and disburse that amount to them forthwith. In case amount is not deposited, this revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 230 OF 2002 -7- The petitioner shall execute bail bond and undertaking before the trial Court that he would act like a disciplined citizen and will not indulge in any crime of the like nature during the period of six months. Requisite bail bonds and undertaking be furnished within three months. With above said modification, this revision petition stands disposed of.
February 16, 2009 ( Jasbir Singh ) DKC Judge