Gursewak Singh v. State of Punjab

Mr. P.S. Sidhu, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. T.P.S. MANN, J. The petitioner was tried for an offence under Section 304-A IPC. Vide judgment and order dated 9.2.1994, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar convicted him for the said offence and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Aggrieved of his conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal but the same was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar on 26.10.1995. Still not satisfied, the petitioner filed the present revision under Section 401 Cr.P.C., which was admitted on 13.12.1995 and he was granted the concession of bail. According to the prosecution, on 28.9.1987, at about

10.30 A.M., complainant Sukhbir Singh and his servant Mohan Criminal Revision No. 871 of 1995 -2- were going on separate cycles to his village Wadali Dogran from Jandiala after purchasing items for sale at his Karyana shop set up in the village. The cycle paddled by Mohan was ahead of his cycle by about 25/30 karams. When Mohan was about 3 karams behind the point where link road coming from village Meharbanpura touched the G.T. Road, bus No. PJA-242 belonging to Punjab Roadways, Depot No.1, Amritsar crossed the complainant at a very fast speed. Another bus was lying parked in front of the link road. In the meanwhile, Mohan turned his cycle towards village Meharbanpura. The driver of the aforementioned bus crossed on right side of Mohan without blowing any horn and ran over him under its left rear wheels. The driver of the bus, who was a Sikh gentleman, parked his bus after crossing the link road.

However, after noticing that the victim had died, the driver of the bus fled from the place of occurrence. After leaving one Lachhman Dass at the spot, complainant Sukhbir Singh left for police station. On the way, he met HC Santokh Singh, before whom he made statement at 1.50 P.M., on the basis of which formal FIR No.259 was registered at Police Station, Jandiala on 28.9.1987 at 2.05 P.M. The investigation of the case was taken up by Head Constable Santokh Singh, who after reaching the spot prepared inquest report as well as rough site plan of the place of occurrence. He recorded the statements of the witnesses. The bus was taken into possession and got tested from the mechanic. Post mortem examination on the dead body of Mohan was conducted. The petitioner was arrested and on completion of the investigation he was challaned. He was then charge sheeted under Section 304-A IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In support of its case, the prosecution had examined PW1 Raj Kumar, PW2 HC Malwinder Singh, PW3 C. Sangat Singh, PW4 complainant Sukhbir Singh, PW5 Lachhman Dass, PW6 HC Criminal Revision No. 871 of 1995 -3- Santokh Singh, PW7 Sucha Singh, PW8 Dr. N.P. Aggarwal, PW9 ASI Ajit Singh and PW10 Jasbir Singh-mechanic. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the petitioner had denied the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded false implication. However, he did not lead any evidence in defence. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence brought on the record, the trial Court believed the prosecution case and convicted and sentenced the petitioner, as mentioned above. The findings arrived at by the learned trial Court were upheld in appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence. According to the prosecution, after causing the accident, the petitioner stopped the bus and came out.

On noticing that Mohan, who was run over by him when he was driving the bus rashly and negligently, had died, the petitioner fled from the scene. Therefore, both Sukhbir Singh PW4 and Lachhman Dass PW5 had ample opportunity to make themselves familiar with him. It is true that the prosecution did not arrange any identification parade so as to fix the identity of the petitioner to be the one who was driving the offending bus. However, the fact remains that the bus belonged to Punjab Roadways and its way bill is on the file which showed that the bus was being plied on the road at that time. If the petitioner had not been assigned the duty to drive the offending bus, he could have produced some evidence but he failed to do so. Even when the petitioner was examined by the trial Court under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he had not specifically denied about his being Criminal Revision No. 871 of 1995 -4- the driver of the offending bus at the time of the accident.

Certain contradictions have been pointed out by the learned defence counsel in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses but the Court is of the view that these discrepancies are minor and do not go to the root of the case. Such like discrepancies are bound to appear in the testimonies of truthful witnesses. It is submitted that the petitioner is a first offender and sole bread earner of his family and, therefore, he be extended the benefit of probation. This plea is opposed by the learned State counsel on the ground that on account of rash and negligent driving by the petitioner, an innocent person moving on the road lost his life. It was the case of the prosecution that the petitioner did not blow the horn and was driving the bus at a fast speed at the time of causing the accident. He was also rash and negligent in driving the bus which resulted in the accident leading to the death of a cyclist.

It was expected of him to drive the bus in a careful manner so as to avoid causing of any accident or hitting other users of the road. After causing the accident, he stopped the bus but then escaped from the place of occurrence. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioner does not deserve to be released on probation. However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner had been facing the agony of criminal prosecution since 1987 and the present revision has remained pending in this Court for more than 14 years, I find it to be a fit case to reduce the substantive sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner to that already undergone by him, in case he deposits an amount of Rs.25,000/- with the trial Court so as to be paid as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased. Criminal Revision No. 871 of 1995 -5- Resultantly, the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 304-A IPC is maintained.

In the event of the petitioner depositing an amount of Rs.25,000/- with the trial Court within three months from today for being paid as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased, the substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year imposed upon him by the learned Courts below shall stand reduced to that already undergone by him. The sentence of fine, alongwith its default clause, is, however, maintained. The revision is, accordingly, disposed of. March 15, 2010 satish ( T.P.S. MANN ) JUDGE