Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagraj Singh vs State Of Punjab on 25 April, 2018
Author: Amol Rattan Singh
Bench: Amol Rattan Singh
Criminal Revision No.3388 of 2017 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No.3388 of 2017
Date of Decision: 25.04.2018
Jagraj Singh ...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH
Present:- Mr. Siddharth Gupta, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. J S. Walia, Senior DAG, Punjab.
Amol Rattan Singh, J.
By this revision petition, the petitioner, Jagraj Singh, has challenged the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rajpura, dated 02.12.2016, as also the judgment of the learned appellate Court, i.e. the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, dated 24.08.2017.
The learned trial Court had convicted the petitioner holding him guilty of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279/304-A IPC, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years in respect of the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC and rigorous imprisonment of 6 months in respect of the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC, with both sentences ordered to run concurrently.
The said judgment was upheld by the learned appellate Court in toto, dismissing the appeal filed by the present petitioner.
2. The facts giving rise to the criminal proceedings are that on 17.10.2014 a wireless message was received by the police of Police Station 1 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 07-05-2018 06:34:38 ::: Criminal Revision No.3388 of 2017 2 Kheri Gandian, District Patiala, that one Fakir Chand had unfortunately died in a road side accident, with his body lying in the A.P. Jain Hospital, Rajpura, District Patiala.
The next morning ASI Sohan Singh alongwith other police officials visited the said hospital and were met by Inderjit Singh, son of the deceased, alongwith other relatives, with Inderjit Singh making a statement that he was an agriculturist who was also running a milk dairy, and that on 16.10.2014 he alongwith his father had gone to the dairy-cum-farm where buffaloes were kept by them, and while returning home to Rajpura, his father was driving a Tata Ace vehicle bearing registration no. PB-11AF-9584, with he (complainant-Inderjit Singh) following his father on a Bajaj Chetak scooter bearing registration no.PB 11W-8107.
3. When his father crossed village Gajipur at about 7:30 pm and had reached opposite a cold-store, a bus belonging to the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, bearing registration no.PB-03R-9960, came from the side of Rajpura, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, which struck against the vehicle driven by his father, due to which his father received grievous injuries and died on the spot, with the vehicle also badly damaged.
4. The bus driver is stated to have fled away from the spot leaving the bus, though as per the complainant, he could identify him if he was produced before him.
As per the complainant, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver.
A ruqa was sent to the police station, resulting in the registration of an FIR (the copies of the ruqa and the FIR being Exs. PW2/A and PW9/B 2 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 07-05-2018 06:34:39 ::: Criminal Revision No.3388 of 2017 3 respectively, before the trial Court).
5. The Investigating Officer is stated to have visited the place of occurrence and prepared a site plan, Ex.PW9/F, with the accused arrested thereafter, and a personal search also conducted vide memos Exs. PW9/G and PW9/H respectively.
6. Copies of the registration certificate and fitness certificate of the bus, the duty roster, the yard control permit and posting orders of the driver of the bus, were also taken into possession, recorded vide a memo, (later Ex. PW9/I).
7. The report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. having been presented to the competent Court, after procedural formalities, the accused was charged with the commission of the offences for which he was eventually convicted (though in the 'head note' of the charge sheet dated 21.01.2015, signed by the JMIC, Patiala, an offence punishable under Section 427 IPC is also shown to be included, but with no charge actually framed under the said provision, as also noticed by the learned appellate Court in its judgment).
8. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses, including Hem Raj and Sukhdarshan Singh, who identified the dead body, the complainant (Inderjit Singh), Dr. Kiranjot Kaur who conducted the post mortem examination, formal witnesses from the police department with regard to various documents either recorded or handed over, ASI Sohan Singh, the Investigating Officer, and Lal Chand, Sub-Inspector in the Road Transport Corporation, who obtained documents of the bus, including the duty roster, permit and appointment letter of the petitioner.
The motor-mechanic of the Transport Corporation, Patiala Depot, who had mechanically examined the bus in question, also testified as 3 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 07-05-2018 06:34:39 ::: Criminal Revision No.3388 of 2017 4 PW7 to prove his test report as Ex.PW7/A, with one Devinder Singh, Mechanic at Balwant Motors, Rajpura, also having deposed that he had examined the Tata Ace vehicle driven by the deceased. He proved his mechanical test report as Ex.PW8/A.
9. The Investigating Officer, PW9 ASI Sohan Singh, testified in respect of the police proceedings, including the FIR, the statement made by the complainant, (the statement being Ex.PW9/D), the site plan Ex.PW9/F, the arrest memo Ex.PW9/G, with the said witness also identifying the accused in Court.
The arrest memo is seen to be dated 27.10.2014, with HC Angrej Singh (PW10) having deposed that Sukhjiwan Singh and Lal Chand, Sub- Inspector in the PRTC, Bathinda, had produced the accused-petitioner before the Investigating Officer, who thereafter arrested him Lal Chand also handed over the copies of the documents of the bus, he even having identified the accused.
10. Upon considering the aforesaid evidence, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that as regards the identity of the petitioner-accused as the driver of the bus in question, it was duly proved by the attendance certificate of the Bathinda Depot of the State Transport Corporation, duty roster (Ex.PW6/C) and other documents, and as regards the negligence in driving the bus, it stood duly proved firstly by the eye witness, i.e. PW2 Inderjit Singh, son of the deceased, who testified in support of his statement made at the first instance before the police, as also by the reports of the mechanic, showing the bus badly damage from the front side, seen with the mechanical report of the Tata Ace vehicle driven by the deceased.
4 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 07-05-2018 06:34:39 ::: Criminal Revision No.3388 of 2017 5 As opposed to the aforesaid evidence, the petitioner-accused, other than making his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., did not lead any evidence though he had stated that he wished to.
On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, as also the deposition of the doctor who had recorded the post mortem examination report, to the effect that the deceased had died due to 'crush injuries', the accused was held guilty of the commission of the aforesaid offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC, and was sentenced accordingly.
11. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, after noticing the facts and seeing that no appeal had been filed by the State with regard to non-conviction in respect of the offence punishable under Section 427 IPC (which offence was only mentioned in the head note of the charge sheet with no actual charge framed thereunder), thereafter, briefly referred to the evidence led by the prosecution.
An argument was raised on behalf of the appellant that the presence of the complainant on the spot was doubtful because the father and son could both travel in the same vehicle, and further, that though the complainants' claim was that he was present at that time when the accident took place, the body was shown to have been brought to the hospital by HC Jujhar Singh, as per the post mortem report.
That argument was countered (before the appellate Court) by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, saying that the father and son could have been going on separate vehicles and that actually it was the complainant himself who had taken the body to the hospital, but it was brought to the mortuary by HC Jujhar Singh for the purpose of the post mortem examination, with therefore his name on that report.
5 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 07-05-2018 06:34:39 ::: Criminal Revision No.3388 of 2017 6 It was noticed by that Court that as per the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the deceased had died due to his own negligence, but with no evidence led in his defence, to that effect.
12. That Court also noticed that there were some minor discrepancies in the statement of the complainant-eye witness Inderjit Singh, but there was nothing of substance to disbelieve his testimony, and with him having specifically stated in his statement that he brought the dead body to the hospital with the help of passers-by, and that the police came there subsequently, it did not mean that HC Jujhar Singh had brought the dead body to the hospital itself.
Also rejecting the contention that because no test identification parade had taken place, an adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution, the appeal filed by the present petitioner was dismissed.
13. Before this Court, Mr. Siddharth Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterated the argument that with the father and son coming from the same place and both going home, firstly there would be no reason for them to be travelling in separate vehicles, also seen with the fact that no policeman actually came to the spot of the accident at that time, therefore the site plan prepared subsequently, cannot depict the true picture of the accident.
He further reiterated what was argued before the learned Courts below, to the effect that in fact the dead body was also not brought to the hospital by the complainant (alleged eye witness) but by the police.
14. To counter the aforesaid arguments, Mr. J.S.Walia, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, submitted that, firstly, the petitioner having run away from the spot leaving the bus behind, pointed to his guilt and therefore the Courts below have not erred in arriving at the 6 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 07-05-2018 06:34:39 ::: Criminal Revision No.3388 of 2017 7 conclusion that they have; and further, as the father and son were both running a dairy as per the statement of the son, i.e. complainant Inderjit Singh, no adverse inference could be drawn because of the fact that they were travelling in two separate vehicles in which they had reached the dairy, and were consequently returning on such vehicles.
15. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner had argued that as regards the petitioner running away from the spot, with a crowd stated to have gathered there, he had no choice but to escape the wrath of the crowd.
16. Though learned counsel on both sides addressed arguments that no photographs were taken of the site of the accident, a perusal of the record of the learned trial Court shows that though the photographs are shown to have been taken at night and in the day, of both the vehicles, they were not actually exhibited before the trial Court and as such this Court would also not normally take notice of them, they also not having been led by way of any additional evidence at any subsequent stage.
However, since they are obviously of the two vehicles in question, with the registration numbers displayed on the number plates, reference is being made to the extent that as regards the photographs in the day, i.e. obviously the day after the accident, (the time of the accident shown to be about 7:35 pm in October), the vehicle driven by the deceased is seen on the 'kacha' portion on the side of the road, with the photograph of the bus in the day time being not on the road but probably in the police station, as the bus is seen standing on tiles and not on either the 'kacha' portion of the road or on its metaled portion.
As regards the photographs at night, they do not show the vehicles in a 'collided position' with each other. As regards the bus, the 7 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 07-05-2018 06:34:39 ::: Criminal Revision No.3388 of 2017 8 photographs had been taken from behind, though the bus is obviously at an angle, tilting forward, and the Tata Ace vehicle is seen to be almost completely destroyed, again standing not on the road but what would be the side of the road, i.e. the 'kacha' area.
17. Learned counsel for the petitioner also having pointed to the site plan, Ex.PW9/F, that site plan was again admittedly prepared the next day on the statement of the complainant Inderjit Singh. As per the site plan, the accident took place at Point C shown on the road, which if the statement of the complainant is to be believed, would show the bus to be on the wrong side of the road as it was admittedly coming from the side of Rajpura, with the complainant and his father going in their separate vehicles towards the Rajpura side. The site plan depicts the vehicle of the deceased to be at Point A, on the 'kacha' portion to the left side of the road (going towards the Rajpura side), with the bus shown to be standing at Point B at right of the centre of the road if going towards Rajpura, i.e. left of centre if seen to be coming from Rajpura.
18. Having considered the arguments and the record as pointed to, as also the judgments of the learned Courts below, as regards the identity of the bus driver, i.e. the petitioner, I have no doubt that it was he who was driving the bus, even seen as per the duty roster, Ex.PW6/C, produced and proved before the trial Court by the Sub-Inspector of the Depot of the Road Transport Corporation, which learned counsel for the petitioner has not even attempted to discredit.
As regards Head Constable Jujhar Singh having brought the dead body to the hospital, that cannot be established on the basis of the post mortem examination report, because admittedly the police came to the spot 8 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 07-05-2018 06:34:39 ::: Criminal Revision No.3388 of 2017 9 only the next morning and prepared the site plan etc. at the instance of the complainant, which would also visible from the testimony of the Head Constable (PW5), who stated so and also stated that he and the police party met the complainant and other relatives of the deceased immediately outside the mortuary of the A.P. Jain Hospital at Rajpura. Thus, the police not having reached the spot at any time during the night when the accident took place, the dead body being brought to the hospital by HC Jujhar Singh can be actually ruled out.
19. The question therefore is as to whether the complainant, Inderjit Singh, actually witnessed the accident or not, or his presence there was simply believed on his statement that he was following his father on the scooter.
In the opinion of this Court, it is, of course, quite possible that he was following his fathers' vehicle on a scooter as submitted by learned State counsel, they both having reached their dairy farm on separate vehicles and therefore having left there accordingly, or simply having also taken the Tata Ace vehicle from the dairy farm, which thereby necessitated them to travel in two different vehicles. It is seen that no question was put to this witness (PW2) to suggest that they had not travelled on two separate vehicles, though a question was put as to the distance between their vehicles.
However, what this Court cannot overlook is the fact that the police did not make any attempt to reach the spot at night to actually take photographs of the accident as it took place; showing the exact position of the bus and the vehicle driven by the deceased, i.e. as to whether the accident occurred in the centre of the road or whether it was the bus which was on the wrong side of the road, or in fact it was the vehicle of the deceased which was on the wrong side.
9 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 07-05-2018 06:34:39 ::: Criminal Revision No.3388 of 2017 10 The police, in fact, has to be castigated for not conducting a proper investigation, with no attempt even seen to be made to try and establish the presence of the complainant Inderjit Singh at the spot, by obtaining his mobile number and mobile call details, which are easily available to the police if they make an attempt to do so.
20. Yet, what has to be held against the petitioner is the fact that he did not even step into the witness box himself in his defence and consequently did not subject himself to any cross-examination in support of any stand that he took even under Section 313 Cr.P.C., to the effect that it was the negligence of the deceased that had caused the accident.
21. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, he is not entitled to the benefit of doubt, even after having observed that the police did not investigate to establish the presence of the complainant, Inderjit Singh, on the spot.
It needs further to be observed in that context that as per the duty roster, Ex.PW6/C, even the employee number of the Conductor of the bus in question is given therein, but he too was not got examined by the petitioner- accused, to testify in his defence.
Hence, as regards the negligence of the petitioner in causing the accident, I see no reason to interfere with the judgments of the Courts below.
22. Consequently, the finding of the trial Court, upheld by the appellate Court, holding the petitioner guilty of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC, is upheld.
Coming to the quantum of sentence, as per learned counsel for the appellant, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded about Rs. 8,00,000/- to the legal heirs of deceased Fakir Chand, with no appeal stated to have been filed against them for enhancement of the compensation so far at 10 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 07-05-2018 06:34:39 ::: Criminal Revision No.3388 of 2017 11 least as per learned counsel instructions. Therefore, keeping in view of the fact that the petitioner has already undergone about 10 months of actual imprisonment in respect of the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC, he having completed the six months sentence ordered to run concurrently in respect of the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC, it would be appropriate to reduce the sentence to the extent undergone by him. He consequently, be released from custody forthwith.
The revision is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent.
April 25, 2018 (AMOL RATTAN SINGH)
dinesh/nitin JUDGE
1.Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
2. Whether reportable? Yes/No
11 of 11
::: Downloaded on - 07-05-2018 06:34:39 :::