Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 665 (PNJ)

Shiv Narain v. State Of Punjab

2002-07-15

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

body2002
Judgment Ashutosh Mohunta, J. 1. In the present revision petition, the petitioner has impugned the judgments and orders dated January 22, 1997 and September 20, 2000, passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kharar, and the Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar, respectively; vide which the petitioner has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A, Indian Penal Code. Under Section 279, Indian Penal Code, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and under Section 304-A, Indian Penal Code, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. On his failure to deposit the fine, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The petitioner was a driver of Haryana Roadways. On the day of occurrence at about 11.25 A.M., Haryana Roadways bus No. HR-07A-1586, being driven by the petitioner in a rash and negligent manner, hit against Gurdial Singh deceased, while he was riding a scooter, when he started to cross the traffic lights near Zirakpur. He was seriously injured. He was taken to the P.G.I., where he succumbed to his injuries. 3. The petitioner was tried for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A, Indian Penal Code. 4. The prosecution examined Joga Singh (P.W.3) and Punit Singh (P.W.4) as the eye-witnesses of the occurrence, besides the formal official witnesses. The learned trial Magistrate convicted and sentenced the petitioner in the manner indicated above. The appeal filed by the petitioner in order to impugn the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Magistrate, was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Hence the revision petition. 5. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, both Joga Singh and Punit singh, the alleged eye-witnesses of the occurrence, are the close relations of the deceased. The third eye-witness, who allegedly got the deceased admitted to the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, has not been examined by the prosecution. Thus, according to the learned counsel, it is not safe to the place reliance on the testimony of the interested witnesses. He further contends that since the petitioner had been convicted under Section 304-A, Indian Penal Code, his conviction under Section 279, Indian Penal Code, could not be sustained. Thus, according to the learned counsel, it is not safe to the place reliance on the testimony of the interested witnesses. He further contends that since the petitioner had been convicted under Section 304-A, Indian Penal Code, his conviction under Section 279, Indian Penal Code, could not be sustained. Still further, it has been contended by the learned counsel that the deceased was not having a valid driving licence, which shows that the deceased himself was at fault. Lastly, he submits that the petitioner is a first offender and, thus, he deserves to be given the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a number of Single Bench authorities of this Court reported as Kartar Singh v. State of Haryana, 1995(1) Recent Criminal Reports 508; Ranjit Singh v. The State of Haryana, 1988(1) Recent Criminal Reports 538; Gurmej Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1994(1) Recent Criminal Reports 162; Satwinder Singh v. State (U.T. Chandigarh), 2000(2) RCR(Criminal) 172; Gobind Ram v. The State of Haryana, 1978 C.L.R. (Pb. & Har.) 255; Prem Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1980 C.L.R. 234; Sadhu Ram v. The State of Haryana, 1983(1) Recent Criminal Reports 272 ; Lal Singh v. State of Haryana, 1983(3) Recent Criminal Reports 231; Mange Ram v. The State of Haryana, 1987(1) Recent Criminal Reports 172; Sikander Singh v. State of Punjab, 1990(2) Recent Criminal Reports 609; and Jai Pal v. State of Haryana, 1996(3) Recent Criminal Reports 282. 6. I do not find any merit in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the present case it has been held by both the Courts below that the petitioner was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner, which resulted in the death of Gurdial Singh. He tried to cross the traffic lights while the red light was still on. The witnesses cited by the prosecution cannot be said to be the procured witnesses by any stretch of imagination. Their presence at the spot has been fully explanied by the prosecution without casting any shadow of doubt in their conduct. He tried to cross the traffic lights while the red light was still on. The witnesses cited by the prosecution cannot be said to be the procured witnesses by any stretch of imagination. Their presence at the spot has been fully explanied by the prosecution without casting any shadow of doubt in their conduct. The non- examination of the person who got the deceased admitted to the P.G.I., cannot be said to be fatal to the case of the prosecution, when there is ample evidence on record that the deceased was got admitted to the P.G.I., in an injured condition and he died there. The authorities cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are of no help to him. In most of the authorities, the accused had been granted the benefit of probation, when it had been proved that the accused was a youngman and also that he had taken care to take the injured to the hospital. Thus, in view of the conduct of the accused, the Courts had taken a lenient view with regard to the sentence awarded to him and he was released on probation. Herein the case is somewhat different. The driver had not taken the deceased to the hospital but he was taken to the P.G.I. by someone else. Thus, his conduct does not deserve any sympathy from the Court. The petitioner has killed a man and he has been awarded the sentence of 1 year only for the offence falling under Section 304-A, Indian Penal Code. There is no ground to interfere with the well reasoned judgments delivered by both the Courts below. In view of the above, the petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.