Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 932 (PNJ)

Chhabil Dass v. State Of Haryana

2000-08-17

V.K.BALI

body2000
Judgment V.K.Bali, J. 1. This revision has been directed against the order of conviction and sentence recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak dated 20th of February, 1988, holding petitioner guilty for offences under Sections 304-A and 279 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo RI for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- or in default to further undergo RI for six months under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and also to undergo three months RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- or in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for 20 days under Section 279 IPC. Both the sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of conviction and sentence was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rohtak, vide his order dated 27th of September, 1988. 2. Brief facts of the case reveal that on 9th of August, 1988 in the area of village Kharkara on Rohtak-Hissar road, the petitioner was driving his truck No. HYB 941 and since he was driving rashly and negligently he caused death of Smt. Yashwanti. The occurrence was witnessed by Rattan Singh and Nanhi PWs. 3. There is no need to give further details of the case, as all that has been urged in support of this petition is, that the facts of the case are not such as may warrant the maximum punishment prescribed under the law. This contention of the learned counsel is sought to be rebutted by the Counsel representing the State on the basis of recent judgment of Supreme Court in Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana, 2000(2) RCR(Crl.) 816 : 2000(5) Supreme Court Cases 82. The facts of Dalbir Singhs case (supra) reveal that the accused therein was driving a bus and knocked down a cyclist in front of the main gate of an office building in the town of Bhiwani. The time was around 6.15 p.m. and victim was just leaving his place of work. After being hit he was dragged by bus for some distance. The Courts below while returning a finding of guilt against the accused had observed that the accused had ignored simple but critical rule and had driven very carelessly and rashly and crushed the man in front of his own office building. After being hit he was dragged by bus for some distance. The Courts below while returning a finding of guilt against the accused had observed that the accused had ignored simple but critical rule and had driven very carelessly and rashly and crushed the man in front of his own office building. It was held by the Honble Supreme Court that benevolent provisions of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act are not attracted under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. It has been further held that while considering the quantum of sentence to be imposed in such cases, one of the prime considerations should be deterrence so that every driver foresees that if convicted, Court would not treat him leniently. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel representing the parties and with their assistance examined the records. Maximum sentence provided under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code is two years. Whereas it is true and so held by the Honble Supreme Court that lenient view should not be taken where a negligent driver kills a man on the road and the benevolent provisions of Probation of Offenders Act should not be extended to them, it is equally true that the quantum of sentence would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. To illustrate if a driver who is excessively drunk by his utter carelessness, rash and negligent driving kills under his wheels six persons, the sentence in that case will not be beyond a period of two years. Should it be true and the same sentence awarded to a person who, no doubt, is rash and negligent in driving but not the extent and degree as compared to those as mentioned above and who kills so many persons. In considered view of this Court, whereas it may not be permissible to let off rash and negligent driver under the benevolent provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, but quantum of sentence would necessarily depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, it is admitted position, as has been mentioned by the learned Sessions (Judge) in paragraph 3 that at the relevant time half portion of the road was under repairs and some labourers were actually working on the road and that even as per the prosecution version the truck struck against deceased Yashwanti from the back side. In the present case, it is admitted position, as has been mentioned by the learned Sessions (Judge) in paragraph 3 that at the relevant time half portion of the road was under repairs and some labourers were actually working on the road and that even as per the prosecution version the truck struck against deceased Yashwanti from the back side. This version of the prosecution has been mentioned by the learned Magistrate and is available at page 19 of the paper book. The petitioner was, no doubt, rash and negligent but the facts as mentioned above, would reduce to some extent rash and negligent driving on his part. 5. Apart from what has been said above, the occurrence took place in August, 1986 and the petitioner has already undergone a protracted trial spanned over a period of 14 years. 6. In considered view of this Court ends of justice would be amply met if the petitioner is sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. So ordered. 7. Consequently, while upholding the order of conviction, the sentence imposed upon the petitioner by the Courts below is reduced to one year under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. The order with regard to fine by the Courts below is maintained and so also the consequence thereof. The conviction and sentence recorded by the Courts below under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code is also maintained. The revision is partly allowed. Revision partly allowed.