Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satbir vs State Of Haryana on 27 February, 2013
Author: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Bench: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-4195-2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision: February 27, 2013
Satbir
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
Present: Mr. Gorakh Nath, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Anupam Sharma, AAG, Haryana,
for the respondent.
NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J.
1. Present criminal revision petition has been filed challenging the judgment dated 27.11.2012, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence, for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A and 337, IPC, in a case arising out of FIR No. 251, dated 29.12.2003, registered at Police Station, Sadar, Rohtak, awarded by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak, was dismissed.
2. Concisely stated, the facts of the case are that on 28.12.2003, Sombir along with his cousin, Karambir, was coming to his village Kabulpur, from Rohtak, in the auto-rickshaw of CRR-4195-2012 (O&M) 2 Sham Sunder, bearing Registration No. HR-46-B-1185. The complainant, Sombir, was sitting on the left side, while Karambir was sitting on the right side of the driver of the auto-rickshaw. When the said auto-rickshaw had covered a distance of half kilometer from village Ritoli towards Beri, a four-wheeler being driven at a fast speed, in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite side and hit against the above stated auto- rickshaw. Resultantly, the complainant, Sombir, and Karambir both fell on the metalled road and sustained injuries. Karambir succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The driver of the four- wheeler stopped his vehicle, bearing Registration No. HR-46- 7690, at some distance from the place of accident. He disclosed his name as Satbir (petitioner). When the complainant, Sombir, and auto-rickshaw driver, Sham Sunder, were attending to Karambir, the petitioner got an opportunity and fled away after leaving the four-wheeler at the spot.
3. On the basis of the statement suffered by the complainant, Sombir, the FIR was registered. After completing the formalities of the investigation, the charge-sheet (report under Section 173, Cr.P.C.) was presented before the learned Area Judicial Magistrate. Finding a prima-facie case, the then learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, charge-sheeted the petitioner for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A and 337, IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty CRR-4195-2012 (O&M) 3 and claimed trial.
4. In order to substantiate its allegations, the prosecution examined Ram Chander as PW-1; Dalbir as PW-2; SI Baljeet Singh as PW-3; HC Surender Singh as PW-4; ASI Parkash as PW-5; Narender as PW-6; ASI Ram Niwas as PW-7; the complainant, Sombir, as PW-8; Inspector Mohinder Singh, as PW-9; Dr. Ranvir Singh as PW-10; and Sham Sunder, driver of the auto-rickshaw, as PW-11. Thereafter, the evidence of the prosecution was closed by order by the learned Trial Court.
5. The statement of the petitioner-accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C., was recorded in which he denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him and pleaded innocence. No evidence in defence was led.
6. After completion of the trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak, vide the judgment dated 17.9.2011, convicted the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A and 337, IPC, and vide order dated 19.9.2011, awarded the following sentences:-
Offence Sentence Fine In default
(R.I.) (In `) (S.I.)
304-A, IPC. 2 years 4,500/- 1 month
337, IPC. 4 months 500/- 5 days
Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Considering the fact that the petitioner-accused was sentenced CRR-4195-2012 (O&M) 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 337, IPC, the learned Trial Court did not impose a separate sentence for the offence punishable under Section 279, IPC.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 59 of 2011/2012 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, but the same was dismissed. Therefore, the present criminal revision petition has been filed challenging the said judgments.
8. On 7.1.2013, when the criminal revision petition came up for preliminary hearing before this Court, at that stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly proposed not to challenge the verdict of conviction on merits. However, he submitted that keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded to the petitioner was on higher side. Therefore, notice of motion was issued for the limited purpose of consideration of the quantum of sentence only.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner has been convicted, but keeping in view the fact that two vehicles involved in the accident were coming from opposite sides of each other, both the vehicles hit each other at 8.00 p.m., there might be an error of judgment by anyone of them. Even though the benefit of the same has not been extended to the petitioner-accused while holding him guilty, yet CRR-4195-2012 (O&M) 5 concession in awarding the sentence can be extended to him. He further submitted that except Dalbir Singh (PW-2), the two eye- witnesses, namely, Sombir and Sham Sunder, did not support the prosecution version. He further submitted that the petitioner is the sole bread winner for his family. He also contended that the petitioner is a first offender. During the trial and the appeal, he remained on bail, but the said concession was not misused by him. He further submitted that for the last more than 9 years and 4 months, the petitioner is facing the agony of the trial and the appeal. He further submitted that the petitioner is neither required nor involved in any other case. He also brought to the notice of this Court that the parents of Karambir (deceased) were awarded a compensation of `3,50,000/- along with interest by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, therefore, a lenient view be taken by this Court with regard to the quantum of sentence.
10. Learned counsel for the State on the basis of the affidavit of the Superintendent, District Jail, Rohtak, conceded that the petitioner was not involved in any other case. He further conceded that the petitioner has undergone the substantive sentence of 2 months and 29 days as on 25.2.2013. He also conceded that during his incarceration in jail, the petitioner has not committed any jail offence. However, he submitted that a young boy had lost his life due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, therefore, the sentence awarded to the petitioner CRR-4195-2012 (O&M) 6 was just and there was no scope for reduction.
11. Heard.
12. Though the petitioner has opted not to challenge his conviction, but to satisfy the conscience of the Court, the material available on record has been re-scanned.
13. Dalbir (PW-2) was also traveling in the auto-rickshaw in which the complainant, Sombir, and Karambir (deceased) were present. Dalbir stated on oath that on 28.12.2003, he had come to Rohtak for some personal work. After completing his work, he was on his way to his village Kabulpur in auto-rickshaw bearing No. HR-46-B-1185. The auto-rickshaw was being driven by Sham Sunder, who was also the resident of his village. He further stated that Sombir and Karambir were sitting on the left and right side respectively of driver of the auto-rickshaw. He (Dalbir) was sitting on the back seat of the three-wheeler. He also deposed that at about 8.00 p.m. when they reached at the distance of half kilometer from village Titoli, a four-wheeler, which was being driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite side and hit the auto-rickshaw. Resultantly, Sombir, and Karambir fell on the road. Karambir died due to the injuries suffered in the accident. He further stated that the driver of the four-wheeler stopped his vehicle at some distance from the place of the accident. At that time, he (Dalbir) noted down the registration number of the four-wheeler as HR-46-7690. He also CRR-4195-2012 (O&M) 7 identified the accused (petitioner) as the driver of the four- wheeler at the time of the accident.
14. Ram Chander (PW-1), SI Baljeet Singh (PW-3), Narender (PW-6) and Inspector Mohinder Singh (PW-9), were formal in nature. HC Surender Singh (PW-4), had taken the photographs of the place of occurrence. ASI Parkash (PW-5), deposed that he was an associate of ASI Surjeet in the investigation on 30.12.2003 and in his presence the petitioner- accused was arrested and the registration certificate of the four- wheeler was taken into possession. ASI Ram Niwas (PW-7), had mechanically examined the auto-rickshaw and the four-wheeler and produced his report on the file. The complainant and eye witness of the occurrence, Sombir (PW-8), though stated about their traveling in the auto-rickshaw, meeting the same with an accident, receiving of the injuries and death of Karambir, but he failed to give the registration number of the four-wheeler and even failed to identify the petitioner-accused, therefore, he was declared as hostile. However, he admitted his signatures on the police papers. Dr. Ranvir Singh (PW-10) had conducted the autopsy on the person of Karambir and he proved his report (Ex. PW-10/B) and the inquest report (Ex. PW-10/C). He was very specific in his deposition that the cause of death of Karambir was shock and hemorrhage due to injuries of the liver and that the injuries were anti-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death. CRR-4195-2012 (O&M) 8 Sham Sunder (PW-11), who was driver of the auto-rickshaw, did not support the prosecution case, therefore, he was declared as hostile.
15. Though Sombir and Sham Sunder have failed to support the prosecution case on material particulars, but the un- impeccable deposition of Dalbir (PW-2), as mentioned herein above, clearly establishes that the accident in question had taken place due to rash or negligent driving of the petitioner only and as a result thereof Karambir (deceased) received injuries and died on the spot. The two Courts below have already believed the statement of Dalbir (PW-2) and returned the verdict of the conviction of the petitioner.
16. While exercising revisional jurisdiction, this Court does not find sound reason to differ from the concurrent findings of both the Courts below. Therefore, I am satisfied that the verdict of conviction returned by the two Courts below is well based.
17. Concededly, the petitioner is facing the agony of trial, appeal etc. for the last about 9 years. During the trial and the appeal, he remained on bail, but he did not misuse the said concession. He is stated to be a first offender. He has the responsibility of maintaining his family members. The parents of Karambir (deceased), have already been awarded `3,50,000/- along with interest as compensation by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.
CRR-4195-2012 (O&M) 9
18. Keeping in view all the rival contentions and the facts emerging on record, this Court is of the considered view that it is not a case where the maximum sentence prescribed under Section 304-A, IPC, should be inflicted upon the petitioner- accused. The petitioner-accused can be extended some concession in his substantive sentence. Therefore, the substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 304-A, IPC, is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. The remaining sentences awarded by the learned Courts below shall remain undisturbed. However, all the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.
19. With the above modification in the order of sentence, the present criminal revision petition is partly allowed.
(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI)
February 27, 2013 JUDGE
Pkapoor