Harpal Singh v. State of Punjab

Mr. Manohar Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. K S Pannu, DAG, Punjab for the respondent State -.-

2. 3. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? To be referred to the Reporter or not? Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Section 304-A/279 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgement/order dated

16.02.2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala, to undergo RI for one year under Section 304-A Indian Penal Code and fine Rs.500, in default whereof, to further undergo RI for 30 days and also to undergo RI for three months and fine Rs.250 under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, the petitioner filed appeal against the aforesaid judgement/order of the trial Court. The same was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala vide judgement dated CRR No. 529 of 2003 2

06.03.2003. The present revision petition has been filed challenging the aforesaid judgements passed by both the Courts below. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the speed of the bus in question was admittedly 40 k.m. per hour, whereas, the prosecution witness have not deliberately mentioned the speed of the Maruti car. Thus, by merely saying that the petitioner was driven rashly does not prove rashness in the absence of specific nature of rashness. Reliance has been placed on the judgement reported in 2000 (2) RCR page 826. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that both the courts have failed to appreciate that the prosecution case stood falsified by the statement of PW4 Jasmer Singh. As per prosecution case, both PW-3 Dalbir Singh and PW4 Jamser Singh were travelling in a truck which was behind the Maruti Car in which the deceased was travelling. However, PW4 Jasmer Singh, in his statement made in the Court, admitted that he reached the spot at 7.30 p.m. and the accident had already taken place when he reached the spot. Both the Courts failed to appreciate that the whole prosecution story stood falsified by this admission which was fatal to the prosecution case as both PW3 and PW4 were interested witnesses and related to the deceased and they had obviously reached the spot after the accident. Lastly, it was argued that in view of the fact that the petitioner was not rash or negligent, a very harsh punishment has been awarded to the petitioner. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner have already been effectively dealt with by the both the Courts below. The CRR No. 529 of 2003 3 learned Additional Sessions Judge, in his judgement, has observed that:- “The prosecution proceedings were initiated on the basis of the statement of Dalbir Singh PW3, got recorded to ASI Ashok Kumar, soon after the accident which has been proved on record as EX.PC. Ex.PC. is the first version of the accident coming forth. It is significant to note that in EX.P.C. Complainant Dalbir Singh has specifically stated that after the accident, driver of the bus came down and the disclosed his name as Harpal Singh son of Dalip Singh, resident of House No. 43, Tafazalpura, Patiala, driver PRTC. Further, in EX.P.C., complainant stated that the driver also accompanied the injured in Sumo Jeep to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. While in the witness box, the complainant has deposed in verbatim about the number of bus and the name of the driver being disclosed by him when he came down from the bus after the accident. The fact of name of driver having been recorded by the complainant in his statement EX PC soon after the accident also goes a long way to establish truthfulness of the prosecution version as the statement EX PC had been recorded soon after the accident. The chances of deliberation and manipulation are to the minimum. Though as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, it is true that PW4 Jasmer Singh in his cross examination has stated about his reaching the spot at 7.30 and that having not seen the driver but however, solely on account of lapse/fallacy of prosecution witness, here and there, the whole prosecution version cannot be disbelieved. CRR No. 529 of 2003 4 PW3 is the complainant and an eye witness of the occurrence in question. He categorically deposed that he saw the bus coming at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit the car in question. Thus, there is ground to interfere with impugned judgements of both the Courts below. Accordingly, the judgement/order dated 16.02.2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala, convicting and sentencing the petitioner which was later on affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, in appeal, vide judgement dated 06.03.2003, is upheld. The petitioner is the first offender and was co-operating on the spot at the time of accident. Admittedly, he stopped the bus and came down. He also disclosed his name. He did not run away from the spot. He has since retired from service. He is facing the agony of the protracted trial since February, 1997. The ends of justice would be made if he is released on probation subject to payment of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the rightful claimants of the deceased i.e. legal heirs within two months from today. Accordingly, the present revision is dismissed while modifying the sentence awarded to the petitioner to the extent that he is released on probation under Section 4 (1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, on his executing a bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court for a period of one year within which period he shall continue to be of good behaviour and keep peace. However, this shall be subject to payment of compensation as ordered In case, the compensation of Rs.50,000/-, is not paid, the sentence of the petitioner shall remain as it CRR No. 529 of 2003 5 is.

17.05.2010 Disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge