Ram Sarup v. State of Haryana

It is true that the petitioner was not named in the FIR as the one driving the bus in question. It was only mentioned that complainant-Raj Singh could identify the bus driver if brought before him. When Raj Singh appeared as PW1, he identified the petitioner as the one who was driving the bus at the relevant time. In his cross-examination, he also deposed that he had seen the driver at the spot for the first time and after causing the accident, the driver of the bus got down and ran away from the spot. Similarly, PW2 Daya Chand deposed that on 11.10.1995, he was traveling in the offending bus from Saffidon towards Jind and at about 10.15 A.M. when it was at some distance from village Nirjan towards Saffidon, it Criminal Revision No.1391 of 2005 -4- rammed into a two wheeler. All the passengers of the bus got down and he noticed that Balwan Singh and Raj Singh had received injuries. According to this witness, the bus was being driven by its driver at a fast speed. He also identified the petitioner at the time of his deposition to be the one driving the bus at the relevant time. The investigating agency was under a duty to get the petitioner identified from the witnesses by arranging a test identification parade, which was not done. However, at no point of time the petitioner ever tried to make capital out of it. The reason was obvious as it was a Haryana Roadways bus which was being driven by the petitioner at the relevant time and he must have been aware that in the records maintained by the Haryana Roadways, he was mentioned as the one driving the bus between Saffidon and Jind. Thus, no benefit can be extended to the petitioner on that score. It is the consistent case of PW1 Raj Singh and PW2 Daya Chand that the petitioner was driving the bus in question in a rash and negligent manner as a result of which it met with an accident and caused injuries to Raj Singh and Balwan Singh. The injuries received by Balwan Singh later on resulted in his death. PW4 Dr. G.D. Gupta, deposed that he had radiologically examined injured Raj Singh on 11.10.1995 but did not find any bony injury. The post-mortem examination on the dead body of Balwan Singh was conducted by PW5 Dr. Brij Pal Gupta. According to him, the cause of death was head injury which was ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Criminal Revision No.1391 of 2005 -5- Photographs Exs.P6 to P9 of the place of accident were proved by PW7 Siri Niwas, Photographer. A bare look at the photographs would reveal that the bus driven by the petitioner went on to the wrong side of the road hitting the scooter, which was driven by Balwan Singh whereas his uncle Raj Singh was sitting on the pillion seat. The investigation part of the case stands proved through the statements of PW3 C. Suresh Kumar and PW6 ASI Dharambir. In view of the above, no case is made out for any interference in the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC. The occurrence in question had taken place about 15 years ago. After the dismissal of his appeal by the lower appellate Court, on 7.7.2005, the petitioner was taken into custody to serve the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him. Vide order dated

4.8.2005 passed by this Court while issuing notice of motion in the present petition, the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail. As per the custody certificate produced by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already undergone actual sentence of 1 month and 3 days. Mere fact that the petitioner is not a previous convict is no ground to extend the benefit of probation to him as on account of his rash and negligent driving, life of an innocent user of the road was lost whereas injuries caused to one more similarly situated person. However, taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, the Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars, once Criminal Revision No.1391 of 2005 -6- again, for undergoing the remainder of his sentence. Ends of justice would be amply met if the substantive sentences of the petitioner are reduced to that already undergone by him. Resultantly, the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC is maintained. However, the substantive sentences of imprisonment are reduced to that already undergone by him. The sentences of fine, alongwith the default clause, are maintained. The revision is, accordingly, disposed of. August 11, 2010 satish ( T.P.S. MANN ) JUDGE