Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab

Mr. J.S. Bhullar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been filed by Sukhdev Singh alias Raju son of Jagir Singh. He was named as accused in case FIR No. 18 dated 20.2.1996 registered at Police Station Sultanwind, under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A and 427 IPC. The trial Court found petitioner guilty of offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for offence under Section 279 IPC. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.200/- for offence under Section 337 IPC. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. The petitioner was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for Criminal Revision No. 1449 of 2004 2 nine months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- for offence under Section 338 IPC. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one and a half years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, for offence under Section 304-A IPC. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, petitioner has filed an appeal. The Appellate Court upheld the conviction and maintained the sentence. Formal FIR Ex.PA/2, in the present case, was registered on the basis of statement made by Amrik Singh son of Sham Singh. Amrik Singh stated that he was resident of village Jama Rai and was engaged in the work of affixing punctures of scooters. For his personal work, he had gone to Amritsar and when he was returning to his village on his motor cycle bearing registration No. HRA-9810, then at about 5.30 P.M. he reached near village Bale Chak about 2 Kms towards Tarn Taran, then from the front side one Gharuka, on which certain passengers were sitting, was coming. At that time, one private bus at a very high speed came. The driver of bus was driving the same rashly, negligently and without blowing any horn. The bus collided with his motorcycle. The complainant fell on the ground. Thereafter, the bus had hit the Gharuka, due to which passengers on the Gharuka fell on the ground and suffered many injuries. The Gharuka fell in the drains of the fields. The driver of the bus escaped from the spot. The passer-byes lifted the complainant. The name of driver of bus No. PB-02-K-9997 was learnt as Raju. One person, who was travelling in the Car, brought the injured to the hospital Criminal Revision No. 1449 of 2004 3 at Tarn Taran. Virsa Singh, driver of the Gharuka, was declared dead at hospital. A grievance was made that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. The FIR was investigated. A report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. On 20.4.1996, the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist class, Amritsar, tired the petitioner for offence under Sections 279, 304-A, 338 and 427 IPC. It was stated in the charge that petitioner Sukhdev Singh alias Raju, on 20.2.1996, in the area of village Bale Chak, while driving bus No. PB-02-K-9997 in rash and negligent manner, had caused the accident which endangered human life, caused death of Virsa Singh and grievous injuries to Amrik Singh, Gurshinder Singh and Gurbux Singh. The petitioner had also damaged the Government property. Prosecution examined Satwant Singh, Mechanic from Punjab Roadways, as PW.1. He proved Mechanical Test Report of the bus as Ex.PW.1/A. This witness was not cross-examined. Complainant Amrik Singh appeared as PW.2. He reiterated what was stated in the FIR. He stated that he was carrying seven boxes of 1 liter each, of paint on his motorcycle. He denied that he had not seen the driver of the bus. However, he stated that the name of the driver was later learnt by him. He admitted that Sukhdev Singh was not known to him earlier. PW.3 Sahib Singh is another eye witness who corroborated testimony of PW.2 Amrik Singh. PW.4 Sukhdev Singh, Constable, had participated in the Criminal Revision No. 1449 of 2004 4 investigation and had taken the dead body for post mortem. PW.5 Jagjit Singh had submitted Mechanical Test Report of motorcycle. PW.6 Satnam Singh was Photographer who had taken photographs Ex.P7 to Ex.P12 of the spot. He also proved negatives Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. Bakhtawar Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, appeared as PW.7. This witness had conducted the investigation. PW.8 Swaran Singh, Clerk from the office of the District Transport Officer, Amritsar, proved registration of the bus and stated that bus belong to M/s Nishant & Malwa Bus Services Private Limited, Amritsar. He also proved driving licence Ex.P10. Vijay Kumar, Clerk, from the office of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Amritsar, appeared as PW.9. He proved the ownership of motorcycle. PW.10 Dr. K.K. Singh, conducted medical examination of Amrik Singh, complainant, and found two injuries on his person. Injury No.3 was declared as grievous. PW.11 Dr. Dinesh Gupta conducted autopsy on the dead body of Virsa Singh and stated that cause of death was injury to brain which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Thereafter, the prosecution closed its evidence. The statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. He denied all the incriminating circumstances. The accused examined Dilbagh Singh as DW.1, who stated that accused belong to his village and was engaged in the work of Criminal Revision No. 1449 of 2004 5 driver. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the identity of the accused. PW.2 Amrik Singh stated in the FIR that name of the driver was learnt as Raju and he could identify him. In case of a person who is employed in a Public Transport System, a duty roster is always prepared. It is for the accused to discharge onus that he was not employed and posted as driver on the bus. The argument that prosecution has failed to prove identity of the accused shall also pale into insignificance in view of the statement made by DW.1 Dilbagh Singh that the petitioner, who was resident of his village, was employed as a driver. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner submit that he will not be in a position to assail the conviction of petitioner and shall pray to this Court that sentence of the petitioner be reduced to already undergone as the petitioner has undergone three months of his actual sentence of one and a half years rigorous imprisonment awarded by the trial Court. Counsel for the petitioner submit that the petitioner is ready and willing to compensate the family of deceased Virsa Singh. It is further submitted that occurrence in the present case had taken place on 20.2.1996 and a period of 14 years is going to elapse. Counsel has further stated that petitioner has not committed any offence before or after the occurrence and is leading a life of peaceful and honest citizen. In the present case, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on

22.10.2002. At that time, petitioner had given his age as 31 years. Petitioner is now aged about 40 years and according to counsel, he is a sole bread earner of his family. Criminal Revision No. 1449 of 2004 6 Taking the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner into consideration, this Court is of the view that sending the petitioner behind the bars after 14 years of occurrence may not serve any useful purpose. At the same time, compensation awarded to the family of deceased may provide some solace. Therefore, this Court is of the view that ends of justice will be fully met in case sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to already undergone, however, sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.35,000/-. The petitioner shall deposit the enhanced amount of fine in the trial Court, within three months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The amount, so deposited, shall be disbursed to the legal heirs of the deceased. In case the amount of fine is not deposited, no benefit in reduction of sentence shall accrue to the petitioner. With the observations made above, present revision petition is disposed of. February 16, 2010 “DK” (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge