Judgment:
Crl.R.No.3724 of 2012 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.R.No.3724 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision :
15. 1.2013 ..Satpal ................Petitioner versus State of Punjab .................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.C.Puri Present: Sh.
G.S.Punia, Advocate for the petitioner.
Sh.
Rajesh Mehta, Additional Advocate General, Punjab..K.C.Puri, J.
Challenge in this revision petition is the order dated 23.8.2012 passed by Sh.
K.C.Gupta, Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, vide which the appeal preferred by the accused- appellant/revisionist against judgment and order dated 10/14.6.2010 passed by Sh.
Kuldeep Singh, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samana, vide which the accused – revisionist has been convicted under Section 304-A IPC, was dismissed.
Briefly stated, SHO Police Station Samana sent the accused to stand trial under Sections 279/304-A, 337, 338, 427 IPC in FIR No.389 dated 31.12.2004.
The case of the prosecution, in brief is that one Kulwinder Crl.R.No.3724 of 2012 -2- Pal s/o Megh Raj resident of Krishana Basti, Patran, made statement to the effect that he is working as baledar in Soil Conservation Department.
On 30.12.2004, he came to meet his friend Jagmohan Malik s/o Bharat Bhushan Malik r/o Patiala.
In the evening his brother Bhupinder Kaushik and his wife Smt.
Rajni Kaushik also came there.
On 31.12.2004 at about 9.00 A.M.aforesaid Bhupinder Kaushik brother of the complainant alongwith his wife Smt.
Rajni Kaushik and Sunny Singla were going to Patran in Maruti car bearing registration not PB-11K-7040 being driven by Sinny Singla.
Compalaint alongwith Jagmohan Malik were also going to Patran on a motor cycle bearing registration not PB-11W-8480 being driven by Jagmohan Malik and aforesaid Maruti Car was going ahead of the complainant.
When they reached at a distance of 2 kms from Bus stop Kheri Fattan, one Mini truck being driven in a rash and negligent manner came from the opposite direction and hit with the aforesaid Maruti car bearing registration not PB-11K-7040 being driven by Sunny Singla and its occupants suffered multiple injuries.
Complainant alongwith Jagmohan Malik immediately rushed towards the place of occurrence and in the meantime, driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration not HR-037A-5833 also stopped the said truck and he told his name as Satpal s/o Sunder Lal r/o Malkana Patti, Samana.
Then complainant alongwith Jagmohan Malik gave signal to the vehicle for taking lift and consequently, removed the aforesaid Bhupinder Kaushik, Rajni Kaushik and Sunny Singla to Amar Hospital, Patiala, but Bhupinder Kaushik and Sunny Singla Crl.R.No.3724 of 2012 -3- succumbed to their injuries.
The aforesaid accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of truck bearing registration not HR-037A-5833 namely Satpal.
On the basis of the aforesaid statement, a criminal case was registered.
After completion of the investigation, challan against the accused was presented in the Court.
On appearance of the accused in the Court, copies of documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C,.
were supplied to the accused.
The accused was charge sheeted for offence under Sections 279, 304-A, 338 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The prosecution, in order to bring home guilt of the accused, examined PW-1 Kulwinder Pal, PW-2 Jagmohan Malik, PW-3 C.
Narinder Singh, PW-4 SI Baldev Singh, PW-5 Dr.
D.S.Bhullar, PW-6 HC Piara Singh, PW 6/A Dr.
Harish Tuli, PW-7 Smt.
Rajni and closed the prosecution evidence.
The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.and all the incriminating evidence was put to him to which he denied and pleaded false implication.
The accused did not lead any evidence in his defence.
Learned trial Court, after appraisal of the evidence convicted the accused under Section 304-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of `1,000/- and in default of payment of fine he was to further undergo imprisonment for a period of one month.
Feeling dissatisfied with the said judgment and order dated Crl.R.No.3724 of 2012 -4- 10/14.6.2010, the accused-petitioner preferred the appeal.
Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, vide judgment dated 23.8.2012, after re-appreciation of the evidence, dismissed the appeal.
Still feeling dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 10/14.6.2010 passed by Sh.
Kuldeep Singh, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samana and judgment dated 23.8.2012 passed by Sh.
K.C.Gupta, Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition.
On 23.11.2012, having found that there is concurrent finding regarding guilt of the accused in respect of offence under Section 304 A IPC, notice of motion was issued regarding quantum of sentence only.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is facing trial since 2004 and as such in view of authority reported as Krishan Kumar versus State of Punjab 2005(3) RCR (Criminal) 579, the petitioner may be allowed concession of probation.
I have considered the submission made by counsel for the petitioner.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in authority reported as State of Punjab versus Balwinder Singh and others 2012(1) RCR (Criminal) 424, has held that keeping in view the increasing trend of accident and loss of precious lives, the concession of probation should not be normally granted.
In this very authority, it has been held that while considering the quantum of sentence to be imposed for the offence of causing death or injury by rash and negligent driving of automobiles, Crl.R.No.3724 of 2012 -5- one of the prime considerations should be deterrence.
The persons driving motor vehicles cannot and should not take a chance thinking that even if he is convicted he would be dealt with leniently by the Court.
For lessening the high rate of motor accidents due to careless and callous driving of vehicles, the courts are expected to consider all relevant facts and circumstances bearing on the question of sentence and proceed to impose a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence if the prosecution is able to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
In the abovesaid case, the High Court reduced the sentence to 15 days only and that order was set aside by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
This Court in Criminal Revision No.185 of 2006 titled as Darshan Singh versus State of Punjab, decided on 31.8.2012, while relying upon the authority in Balwinder Singh's case (Supra) and various other authorities of the Apex Court, reached to the conclusion that sentence should not be reduced to the already undergone in cases involving motor vehicular accident.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in authority reported as Rattan Singh versus State of Punjab AIR 198.Supreme Court 84 has held as under:- “Nevertheless, sentencing must have a policy of correction.
This driver, if he has to become a good driver, must have a better training in traffic laws and moral responsibility, with special reference to the potential injury to human life and limb.
Punishment in Crl.R.No.3724 of 2012 -6- this area must, therefore, be accompanied by these components.
The State, we hope will attach a couRs.for better driving together with a livelier sense of responsibility, when the punishment is for driving offences.
May be, the State may consider, in cases of men with poor families, occasional parole and reformatory courses on appropriate application, without the rigour of the old rules which are subject to Government discretion.”
So, in view of the authoritative pronouncement made by the Apex Court, the authority in Krishan Kumar's case (Supra) cannot be given effect as the judgment of the Apex Court has to be followed in preference to the ruling by this Court.
In this case two persons have lost their lives due to the negligent act of the petitioner.
However, he is facing trial since 2004.
So, keeping in view the totality of circumstances, the ends of justice would be met in case, the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to 1-½ years under Section 304-A IPC.
I order accordingly.
However, the sentence of fine under Section 304-A IPC stands affirmed.
With the abovesaid modification, the revision petition stands disposed of.
A copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance.
( K.C.Puri ) 15.1.2013 Judge chugh