CRR No.1127 of 2012 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.
Revision No.1127 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision: November 17, 2012.
Karam Singh @Giani.....PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Punjab.....RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.D.S.Malwai, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Rajesh Bhardwaj, Addl.AG, Punjab.
***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed against judgment dated 16.03.2012 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court).Bathinda dismissing appeal filed by present petitioner against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.12.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate FiRs.Class, Talwandi Sabo in FIR No.100 dated 18.10.2008, under Sections 304A/279 IPC, registered at police station Maur vide which petitioner was convicted for offence under Section 304A IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of `1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo CRR No.1127 of 2012 -2- rigorous imprisonment for one month.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through both the judgments rendered by learned courts below.
Notice of motion in this case was issued by coordinate Bench of this Court regarding quantum of sentence only.
It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he does not want to press this revision petition so far as judgment of conviction as passed by learned trial court and as affirmed by learned appellate court is concerned.
However, he contended that petitioner-accused deserves some leniency in the quantum of sentence as maximum imprisonment provided for the offence has been imposed upon him.
Briefly stated, case of prosecution is that on 18.10.2008 at about 2.15 PM, complainant alongwith Tarsem Chand was present near Fatak Mal Godam when truck bearing registration not HR 38-BG-5133 being driven by present petitioner-accused in a very rash and negligent manner came from the side of Fatak Maur Mandi and hit against Activa scooter bearing registration not CH-04A-2952 being driven by Dinesh Kumar due to which he came under the rear tyre of the truck and sustained multiple injuries.
He succumbed to the injuries at the spot.
Petitioner was already known to the complainant.
After completion of investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.was filed against petitioner-accused, who faced trial.
Learned trial court came to the conclusion that prosecution has been able to prove the case against petitioner-accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt.
Hence, he was convicted under Section 304A IPC and sentenced as aforementioned.
CRR No.1127 of 2012 -3- Appeal filed by petitioner-accused against the said judgment was also dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court).Bathinda.
It has been contended by petitioner-accused that he does not want to press this revision petition so far as judgment of conviction as passed by learned trial court and as affirmed by learned appellate court is concerned.
I have also perused both the judgments passed by learned courts below.
The same are based on evidence.
There is nothing as to why this Court should interfere in the concurrent judgments passed by both the courts below.
Hence, so far as judgment of conviction as passed by learned trial court and as affirmed by learned appellate court is concerned the same are, hereby, affirmed.
However, it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he is not a previous convict and that he has faced agony of trial for the last about six yeaRs.It is also contended that he is having small children to look after and that he is the only bread-winner of the family and hence, it is contended that he be given benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act.
Law on the point as to whether the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 should be granted to the accused- convicted for offence under Section 304-A IPC, has been settled by Hon’ble Apex Court in Dalbir Singh versus State of Haryana, 2000 (2) RCR (Crl.) 816 by observing that the courts should not as a normal rule, invoke the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 when the accused is CRR No.1127 of 2012 -4- convicted of the offence under Section 304-A IPC in causing death of human beings by rash or negligent driving.
Relevant paragraphs no.12 and 13 of the judgment read as under: “12.
In State of Karnataka v.
Krishna alias Raju(1987) 1 SCC 53.: ( AIR 198.SC 86.:
1987. Crl.L.J.776) this Court did not allow a sentence of fine, imposed on a driver who was convicted under S.304-A IPC to remain in force although the High Court too had confirmed the said sentence when an accused was convicted of the offence of driving a bus callously and causing death of a human being.
In that case this Court enhanced the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for six months besides imposed a fine.”
13. Bearing in mind the galloping trend in road accidents in India and the devastating consequences visiting the victims and their families, Criminal Courts cannot treat the nature of the offence under S.
304-A I.P.C.as attracting the benevolent provisions of S.4 of the PO Act.
While considering the quantum of sentence, to be imposed for the offence of causing death by rash or negligent driving of automobiles, one of the prime considerations should be deterrence.
A professional driver pedals the accelerator of the automobile almost throughout his working houRs.He must constantly inform himself that he cannot afford to have a single moment of laxity or inattentiveness when his leg is on the pedal of a vehicle in locomotion.
He cannot and should not take a chance thinking that a rash driving need not necessarily cause any accident, or even if any accident occurs it need not necessarily result in the death of any human being; or even if such death ensues he might not be convicted of the offence, and lastly that even if he is convicted he would be dealt with leniently by the Court.
He CRR No.1127 of 2012 -5- must always keep in his mind the fear psyche that if he is convicted of the offence of causing death of a human being due to his callous driving of vehicle he cannot escape from jail sentence.
This is the role which the Courts can play, particularly at the level of trial Courts, for lessening the highrate of motor accidents due to callous driving of automobiles.”
This judgment was subsequently followed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in B.Nagabhushanam v.
State of Karnataka, 2008(3) RCR (Crl.)50 and the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 was denied to the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC.
In the present case, petitioner-accused hit his vehicle against Activa scooter being driven by deceased due to which he came under the rear wheel of the truck and sustained multiple injuries and he succumbed to the injuries at the spot.
Hence, in view of these facts and in view of the legal proposition settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Dalbir Singh's case (supra) and B.Nagabhushanam's case (supra) petitioner-accused does not deserve the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
However, petitioner is not a previous convict.
He is facing trial for the last six yeaRs.Maximum sentence provided for the offence is two yeaRs.He is the sole bread winner of the family.
He deserves some leniency in the quantum of sentence.
Hence, I am of the view that ends of justice would be met, if the present petitioner is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
Hence, in view of these facts, the present revision petition is CRR No.1127 of 2012 -6- partly accepted.
While affirming the judgment of conviction as passed by learned trial Court and as affirmed by learned appellate court, the order of sentence is modified to the extent that the period of sentence of two years for offence under Section 304A IPC is reduced to one year.
Disposed of accordingly.
( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) November 17, 2012.
JUDGE ‘om’