Krishan alias Bal Kishan v. State of Punjab

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: Mr.Robin Lohan, Advocate, Amicus Curiae, for the petitioner. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Petitioner Krishan alias Bal Kishan was convicted by the trial Court under Sections 304-A and 279 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as `the Code'). For the former offence, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for -2- Criminal Revision No.473 of 2001. two years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. For the latter offence, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and the sentence order passed by the trial Court was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. Hence this revision petition. The instant case was registered on the basis of statement made by complainant Darshan Singh before the police. Rajinder Singh (deceased) was the brother of Darshan Singh. They have been plying truck No. HRX-1235. Mani Singh was their driver. On 15.5.1996, they had parked the truck on the side of the road due to some mechanical defect in the truck. Balbir Singh, a Mechanic from Mandi Gobindgarh was called for setting the truck in order. At about 1.15 P.M when Balbir Singh was repairing the truck and Rajinder Singh (since deceased) was sitting with Balbir Singh for his help whereas the complainant and Mani Singh were standing on one side of the road, a four- wheeler bearing registration No. HR-46-1475, driven by the petitioner rash and negligently, came from behind and struck in the back side of the truck. Resultantly, the front portion of the four-wheeler entered the back side of the truck. As a result of that Balbir Singh, Mechanic, Rajinder Singh and the petitioner suffered injuries. The complainant and Mani Singh shifted all the three injured to Civil Hospital, Mandi Gobindgarh, for -3- Criminal Revision No.473 of 2001. treatment. However, Rajinder Singh died while reaching the hospital. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as ten witnesses, including eye-witnesses Balbir Singh (P.W.4) and Mani Singh (P.W.6) and complainant Darshan Singh (P.W.7). I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that both the Courts below have not taken into account the evidence furnished by the eye-witnesses Balbir Singh (P.W.4) and Mani Singh (P.W.6) and complainant Darshan Singh (P.W.7) in its right perspective. It has been argued that there is no evidence on record to suggest that the four-wheeler was being driven by the petitioner in a rash and negligent manner. According to the learned counsel, it was a case of contributory negligence. I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and find sufficient substance therein. Admittedly, the truck was parked on the road, which was coming from the side of Delhi towards Mandi Gobindgarh. Balbir Singh (P.W.4), the eye-witness, in his cross-examination stated that the accident had occurred on the double road and that the four-wheeler i.e vehicle driven by the petitioner-accused was on its side on the road. Balbir Singh (P.W.4) further stated that he had not seen the four- wheeler / Tempo causing the accident. Darshan Singh (P.W.7), who is the complainant and the eye-witness, in his cross- -4- Criminal Revision No.473 of 2001. examination stated that he did not know the speed of the four- wheeler. The photographs placed on record depict that the truck was parked in the centre of the road and it was being repaired by Balbir Singh (P.W.4). The learned State counsel, on seeing the photographs of the accident, could not dispute the fact that the truck had been parked on the middle of the road. Thus, there is no escape from the conclusion that it was a case of contributory negligence. Accidents do take place on the roads and they are unfortunate. However, every accident cannot be said to be because of rash and negligent driving of the accused/driver. The wrong parking of the truck had also contributed for causation of the accident. The contributory negligence in realm of torts may be an extenuating circumstance to mitigate the liability to pay the damages but that cannot be a sole decisive factor to avoid the liability of compensation. However, in criminal jurisprudence if the victim has also contributed for the causation of the accident by contributory negligence and in the absence of any material to show that only on account of rash and negligent driving of the accused/driver the accident has occurred, it would not be permissible under such circumstances to hold the accused driver guilty of committing an offence under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Code. The law keeps a clear distinction between cases of composite negligence and contributory negligence. In the cases of composite negligence, the drivers of both the vehicles would be guilty of rash and negligent driving. Whereas in a case of contributory negligence, no penal -5- Criminal Revision No.473 of 2001. liability can be fastened on the accused/driver. It is obviously for the reason that but for the contributory negligence, the accident could not have occurred. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubts. Consequently, this petition succeeds. The same is, accordingly, allowed, the impugned judgments and the sentence orders passed by both the Courts below are set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the charges framed against him by giving him the benefit of doubt. March 30, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) JUDGE