Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 113 (PNJ)

Nirmal Singh v. State of Haryana

2003-01-22

R.L.ANAND

body2003
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - This is a criminal revision and has been directed against the judgment dated 23.8.1993 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jagadhri, who by maintaining the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 19.11.1981 at about 8.00 p.m., Ram Singh, Phool Singh, Devki Nandan, Madan Lal, Surinder, Ram Chander, Rajesh Kumar and Ramji Dass were going in a tractor-trolley bearing No. HRX-779 and Ram Singh son of Babool Singh was driving that tractor. Phool SIngh was occupying the seat on the right side of the mudguard whereas Ramji Dass was occupying the seat on the left side of the Mudguard and the remaining persons were sitting in the trolley. When the tractor reached near village Sherpur, a truck bearing No. HYE-2282 came at a very fast speed and without blowing any horn and struck against the tractor-trolley consequently Madan Lal, Surinder, Ram Chander, Ramji Dass died at the spot, whereas Ram Singh and Rajesh Kumar died in the PHC, Sadhaura. At the time of accident Nirmal Singh was driving the offending truck. The injured were removed to PHC, Sadhaura in a Haryana Roadways bus. Rukka was sent by the doctor to the police station and SI Jeet Ram reached the hospital, who prepared the inquest reports. The tractor- trolley and the truck were taken into possession. The dead bodies of the deceased were subjected to post-mortem examination. On completion of the investigation of the case the petitioner was challaned under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A Indian Penal Code and charges were framed against him accordingly on 14.10.1992. The petitioner did not plead not guilty to the charges and claimed a trial. 3. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. Statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code and all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to him. He denied those circumstances and when called upon to enter into defence, he did not lead any evidence. 4. The learned Magistrate vide judgment and order dated 14/16.3.1991 convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo RI for 1-1/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. He denied those circumstances and when called upon to enter into defence, he did not lead any evidence. 4. The learned Magistrate vide judgment and order dated 14/16.3.1991 convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo RI for 1-1/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one year Section 304-A Indian Penal Code. He was further sentenced to undergo RI for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 279 Indian Penal Code. 5. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Jagadhri, who vide impugned judgment dated 23.8.1993 dismissed the appeal. Hence the present revision. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case. 7. The only submission raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the identity of the petitioner in this case is doubtful. This argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable. The police took into possession the driving licence of the petitioner from the offending truck. It was the case of the prosecution that after causing the accident the petitioner ran away from the place of occurrence. This incriminating fact has not been explained by the petitioner under what circumstances his driving licence was found in the offending truck. The recovery of the driving licence from the truck is suggestive of the fact that he was driving the truck in question at the relevant time. He has not claimed any identification parade by making any application before the Magistrate. The defence of the petitioner was that his driving licence had remained in the truck as at one point of time he was employed by the owner of the offending truck. In these circumstances, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to examine the owner of the said truck. How the petitioner could afford to drive the vehicles without his driving licence ? This is a lame excuse on the part of the petitioner. 8. It was then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner may be visited with leniency in the matter of sentence. This submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted in view of the peculiar facts of this case. This is a lame excuse on the part of the petitioner. 8. It was then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner may be visited with leniency in the matter of sentence. This submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted in view of the peculiar facts of this case. The petitioner is a criminal on wheels and he has taken the lives of six persons by driving the heavy vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The Honble Supreme Court has also deprecated the tendency to release such offenders on probation. 9. In these circumstances, I do not find any merit in this revision and by endorsing the reasons given by the first Appellate Court dismiss the present revision. Revision dismissed.