Allahabad High Court
Pappu vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 July, 2019
Author: Virendra Kumar Srivastava
Bench: Virendra Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Reserved Court No. - 88 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 431 of 2001 Revisionist :- Pappu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- R.S. Singh,Anand Kumar Pandey,Kamini Pandey (Dubey),R.B.Singh,Vinay Khare Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Virendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
01. This revision has been preferred against judgment and order dated 3.1.1998 passed by IIIrd Judicial Magistrate, Mathura, in Case No. 1922 of 1994 (State Vs. Pappu) whereby revisionist Pappu has been convicted and sentenced for 6 months simple imprisonment, for offence u/s 279, 304-A and fine of Rs. 500/- as well as order dated 12.1.2001 passed by 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura in Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 1998 u/s 279/304-A IPC, PS. Farah, District Mathura whereby the aforesaid conviction and sentence passed by learned Magistrate has been affirmed.
2. Brief facts of this case are that on 9.4.1990 at about 3:00 p.m., deceased Narayan Singh was going to his home by his bicycle from his field and Amar Singh (PW-1), brother of deceased was grazing his buffalo nearby a ruined building situated nearby Govardhan Nala. As deceased Narayan Singh reached at road, revisionist-accused Pappu, driving his jeep No. D.N.H.0310, rash and negligently dashed in the backside of the cycle of deceased. Deceased Narayan Singh got serious injuries and died on the spot. His bicycle was also broken. The said incident was seen by the informant, Amar Singh (PW-1), Rati Ram, Handu and so many people. Fist Information Report, (Ex.Ka-1) (hereinafter referred to as "FIR") was lodged by Amar Singh (PW-1) at P.S. Farah, Distt. Mathura. After investigation charge sheet (Ex.Ka-4) was submitted against revisionist accused u/s 279, 304-A, 427 IPC. Charges were framed against the revisionist-accused u/s 279, 304-A, 427 IPC. He denied the same and asked for trial. During trial the prosecution examined Amar Singh (PW-1), Ram Singh (PW-2), Const. Jaiveer Singh (PW-3) and S.I., S.S. Tyagi (PW-4). After conclusion of prosecution evidence the statement of accused-revisionist was recorded u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code). He denied the prosecution evidence and stated that he had been falsely implicated. In defence, he produced Bhuri Singh (DW-1). Learned trial Court, after conclusion of trial, found the accused-revisionist guilty for offence u/s 279, 304A IPC and sentenced him for 6 months simple imprisonment and with fine of Rs. 500/-. The accused revisionist, aggrieved by the said judgment and order, preferred an appeal but the learned appellate Court dismissed his appeal vide aforesaid judgement and order and confirmed the judgement and order passed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the learned Magistrate and by learned appellate Judge, this revision has been preferred.
3. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. No one is present for O.P. No.2.
4. Learned counsel for revisionist submits that the revisionist is innocent and has not committed any offence. The alleged accident was not caused by him. The prosecution case is based on only one witness who is relative of deceased. His evidence is not reliable. The involvement of the alleged vehicle has not been proved. The judgement and order passed by the learned Magistrate and affirmed by the appellate Court is against the provision of law and liable to be set aside.
5. Per contra learned AGA has submitted that accused revisionist is named in the FIR. The FIR has been lodged without any delay. Amar Singh (PW-1) is eye witness of the accident. He has no enmity with the accused-revisionist. The ocular evidence is well corroborated by the medical evidence. The judgement passed by the learned Magistrate is well discussed and according to the law which has also been affirmed by the appellate Court. It requires no interference at this stage. The revision is liable to be dismissed.
6. In this revision it has to be seen whether the alleged accident, wherein deceased Narayan Singh had died, was caused by the revisionist Pappu by rash and negligent driving; jeep No. DN H 0310 on 9.4.1990 at 3:00 p.m. and also whether the judgment and orders passed by learned Magistrate and learned Appellate Court require any interference or not.
7. Record shows that Amar Singh (PW-1) is brother of deceased Narayan Singh. He has stated on oath before the Magistrate during trial that at the time of accident i.e. 9.4.1990 at 3:00 p.m., he was grazing his buffalo nearby Govardhan Nala Khandahar and at the same time his brother deceased Narayan Singh was going to his house by his bicycle. Revisionist Pappu came by driving his jeep, rash and negligently dashed his brother whereby he died at the place of occurrence. The incident was witnessed by Amar Singh, Handu and Dungar. According to him he has lodged the FIR. This witness is rustic and illiterate. He was cross examined by the defence counsel but in his cross-examination, he has categorically stated that his brother (deceased) was coming by his bicycle at the time of accident. He has further stated in his cross-examination that the driver of jeep fled away from place of occurrence but stationed his jeep at police outpost (Chauki).
8. The FIR of the alleged incident was lodged on the information given by Amar Singh (PW-1) on same day at 16:15 p.m. wherein revisionist has been shown as accused and alleged jeep No. D.N.H.0310, involved in accident has also been mentioned.
9. Record shows that in support of prosecution case the prosecution has produced Amar Singh (PW-1), who is informant and eye witness of the case and proved the FIR (Ex.Ka-1), Ram Singh (PW-2) has proved the inquest report (Ex.ka-2), Const. Jaiveer Singh (PW-3), S.I. S.S. Tyagi, I.O. (PW-4) has proved site plan (Ex.Ka-3), charge sheet (Ex.Ka-4), FIR Chik (Ex.ka-5) and G.D. (Ex.ka-6).
10. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of revisionist was recorded u/s 313 of Code wherein he denied the accident and said that he has falsely been implicated. The revisionist was given opportunity to lead evidence in his defence. Bhuri Singh (DW-1) was examined by him as defence witness.
11. Learned Magistrate as well as appellate Court have elaborately discussed the evidence, produced by both side, in the impugned judgments and orders.
12. It is pertinent to note at this juncture that it is settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that specific number of witnesses is not required to prove the prosecution case. It depends on facts and circumstances of each case. From perusal of legal proposition propounded by Supreme Court in Vadivelu Thevar Vs. The State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614, it is established principle of criminal law that Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he/she is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment or bar in convicting an accused on the sole testimony of single witness. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 also provides as under:-
"No particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact."
13. It is also pertinent to note at this juncture that Amar Singh (PW-1) is real brother of deceased. He has no enmity with the revisionist. The alleged jeep was stationed in police chauki on the same day after the accident by revisionist. The owner of the vehicle has not been produced by the revisionist as to in what circumstances the alleged jeep was stationed by the driver and who was the driver at the time of accident. Bhuri Singh (DW-1), who is not owner of the vehicle, has said that one Ashok was the driver of the alleged jeep but that Ashok was also not produced by the revisionist. In such situation, if the Magistrate has relied on the statement of sole eye witness, other witnesses and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution, in my view, the learned Magistrate has not committed any illegality or perversity. The impugned judgment passed by the learned Magistrate has been well discussed and affirmed by the appellate Court. In my view, there is neither any illegality nor perversity also in the judgment of appellate Court.
14. Now the question arises whether the sentence awarded by the Magistrate and affirmed by the appellate Court is sufficient or not.
15. Learned counsel for revisionist has submitted that the alleged accident was happened 29 years ago. At that time accused was young but now he is old, hence lenient view is to be adopted.
16. It is settled principle of sentencing and penology that undue sympathy, in awarding the sentence, with accused is not required. The object of sentencing in criminal law should be to protect the society and also to deter the criminals by awarding appropriate sentence. In this regard Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Saleem @ Chamaru, AIR 2005 SC 3996 which is as under:-
"The Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which the criminal and victim belong. The punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it should ''''respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminal''."
17. In this case a young person has died due to rash and negligent driving of the revisionist in which accused-revisionist has been sentenced simple imprisonment of only 6 months and fine of Rs.500/-.
18. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Subhash Chand Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2019 1133, while taking a notice to the gravity and seriousness of the offence u/s 304-A IPC, has held that no leniency is required in sentencing for offence u/s 304-A IPC. Accused cannot be released for probation in such offences.
"10. It has also been argued that the incident in question took place about 19 years back and the appellant has already undergone about four months of imprisonment and hence, no useful purpose would be served by his imprisonment now at this stage; and in any case, the appellant deserves to be extended the benefit of probation. These submissions also deserve to be rejected in the given set of facts and circumstances of this case.
11. In the case of Thangasamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, Criminal Appeal No. 698 of 2010 decided on 20.02.2019, we have rejected similar contentions in relation to a vehicular accident case after taking note of several decisions of this Court on the principles concerning just and adequate punishment in such cases, including those in Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra: (2012) 2 SCC 648; State of M.P. v. Ghansyam Singh: (2003) 8 SCC 13; Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana: (2000) 5 SCC 82; and State of Karnataka v. Muralidhar : (2009) 4 SCC 463. The same principles relating to just and adequate punishment do apply to the present case too; and we find no reason to reduce the punishment awarded or to extend the benefit of probation where a 15 year old boy lost his life due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck by the appellant and where, after causing the accident, the appellant fled from the site and was surrendered by his commandant more than 3 weeks later."
19. The revisionist Pappu has nowhere stated that he was authorized to drive alleged jeep and he had any driving licence. He has also not stated that he was expert in driving or had obtained any training. Driving of any vehicle by unqualified driver, at any public road, in a manner so rash and negligent as to endanger human life and causing death of any innocent person, has become great problem to public, particularly poor people. In technical examination, no defect has been found in the alleged vehicle and the said accident was so grievous that the deceased Narayan Singh had died on spot. Revisionist has been sentenced only by simple imprisonment of 6 months and fine of Rs. 500/- which shows that lenient view has already been adopted by learned Magistrate. Any further leniency in sentence will amount to invite increase of such type of offence and road accidents. Looking into the nature of offence, no further leniency is required and thus, in my view, the sentence awarded by the concerned Magistrate and affirmed by the Appellate Court, requires no interference.
20. In the light of above discussion and law laid down by the Apex Court, I am of the view that there is no illegality, impropriety or perversity in the aforesaid impugned judgment and orders of the learned Magistrate and Appellate Court and the same are liable to be affirmed.
21. The revision devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed.
22. Revisionist Pappu is on bail vide order dated 22.2.2001, of this Court. His bail is cancelled. He shall be arrested and sent to jail to serve out the aforesaid sentence awarded by learned Magistrate and affirmed by appellate Court.
23. Copy of this order along with lower court record be sent forthwith to concerned Magistrate for information and compliance.
Order Date :- 24.7.2019 Vandana