Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 121 (PNJ)

Malkiat Singh v. State of Punjab

2003-01-22

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

body2003
JUDGMENT Ashutosh Mohunta, J. - The petitioner has challenged his conviction and sentence under Sections 304-A, 279 and 337, Indian Penal Code, passed by both the Courts below. The details of the sentence imposed upon him are as under :- Convicted under Section Sentence awarded 304-A Indian Penal Code R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, or in default of payment of fine, to undergo further R.I. for two months. 279 Indian Penal Code R.I. for six months. 337 Indian Penal Code R.I. for six months. All the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The petitioner Malkiat Singh, who was driving the truck bearing registration No. PBF 9965 on July 12, 1986 at about 10.30 A.M. rashly and negligently, is stated to have hit the truck of the Punjab State Electricity Board bearing registration No. PUF-5475 which was being driven by Joga Singh driver on July 12, 1986 at about 10.30 P.M. on the Zira-Moga road near village Misriwala, though Joga Singh had slowed down the speed of the truck and taken it to the extreme left side of the road. As a result of the accident, Jasbir Singh SSA, Grid Sub-Division, Moga, had died at the spot. The other occupants of the truck bearing registration No. PUF-5475 had received injuries. Out of the injured, Zora Singh also died while on the way to the Hospital. 3. On the telephonic message having been received from Police Station City, Ferozepur, A.S.I. Gurdial Singh, along with other Police officials, proceeded to Civil Hospital, Ferozepur. Joga Singh, driver of the P.S.E.B. truck, met the A.S.I. on the main gate of the hospital and made a statement (Ex.PO), and a case under Sections 304-A, 279, 337, Indian Penal Code, against Malkiat Singh petitioner was registered. 4. The dead bodies of Jasbir Singh and Zora Singh were sent to the Civil Hospital, Ferozepur, for post-mortem examination. Dr. Vikas Priya (P.W.1) conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead bodies. Zora Singh was found to have received two injuries on his person, while Jasbir Singh had received four injuries on his person. Dr. Jaspal Singh (P.W.2) had medically examined Malkiat Singh appellant, who had also sustained injuries, and the other injured, namely, Raj Kumar, Ved Paul, Parkash Singh, Baldev Singh, Raghvir Chand and Joga Singh. Harbhajan Singh and Didar Singh were also medico-legally examined. 5. Dr. Jaspal Singh (P.W.2) had medically examined Malkiat Singh appellant, who had also sustained injuries, and the other injured, namely, Raj Kumar, Ved Paul, Parkash Singh, Baldev Singh, Raghvir Chand and Joga Singh. Harbhajan Singh and Didar Singh were also medico-legally examined. 5. Both the trucks were taken into possession by the Police and were got tested from Ashok Kumar, Mechanic, who after conducting the test, submitted the reports Ex.PW8/1 and PW8/2. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. 6. After completion of the investigation, challan against the appellant was submitted in the Court. The petitioner was tried by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur. 7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses, namely, Dr. Vikas Priya (P.W.1), Dr. Jaspal Singh (P.W.2), Harbhajan Singh (P.W.3), Joga Singh (P.W.4), Ved Pal (P.W.5), S.I. Gurdial Singh (P.W.6) (then A.S.I.), Ashwani Kumar (P.W.7) and Ashok Kumar (P.W.8). 8. The petitioner, when examined under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, controverted the prosecution allegations. He took up the plea that he was coming from Talwandi to Ferozepur, while driving truck bearing No. PBF-9965. He was coming on the proper side at a low speed. The driver of truck No. PUF-5457 struck the said truck against his truck from wrong side. The front wheel of the truck was broken and the truck was damaged. No defence evidence has been led by the appellant. 9. The learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur, after examining the evidence brought on record, convicted and sentenced the petitioner, as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment. The appeal filed by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence, was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur. Now Malkiat Singh has filed the present revision petition against his conviction and sentence. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence brought on record. 11. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the right wheel of the truck driven by the petitioner was separated, it has to be believed that it was Joga Singh, who was driving his truck in a rash and negligent manner and not the petitioner. 12. I do not find merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Joga Singh was driving the truck bearing registration No. Jogh Singh been struck against the truck driven by PUF-5457. 12. I do not find merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Joga Singh was driving the truck bearing registration No. Jogh Singh been struck against the truck driven by PUF-5457. It was being taken to Moga from Zira side. The truck bearing registration No. PBF-9965, which was being driven by the petitioner, came from the opposite side. The evidence brought on record reveals taht the right wheel of the truck driven by the petitioner was separated. But this is not the circumstance to conclude that Joga Singh was driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner. The front side of the truck bearing registration No. PUF-5457, being driven by Joga Singh, did not strike against the truck driven by the petitioner. Had the front side of the truck driven by the petitioner, then it could have been said that Joga Singh was driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner, but in fact it did not happen so. However, it has come in evidence that the truck driven by the petitioner had struck against the drivers window and the Dala of the truck driven by Joga Singh, with the result, all the occupants of the truck of P.S.E.B., sitting near the Dala, were thrown out. It resulted in the death of Jasbir Singh at the spot and the other occupants had received injuries. Zora Singh died on the way to the hospital. As many as 9 persons, including the petitioner, had sustained injuries. It has also come in evidence that when the offending truck was found coming from the opposite side, being driven rashly and negligently, Joga Singh had taken the truck of the P.S.E.B. to the extreme left of the road. From all this, it can safely be concluded that the truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the petitioner and not by Joga Singh. 13. In the light of the above discussion, I do not find any infirmity in the well-reasoned judgments recorded by both the Courts below so far as the conviction of the petitioner is concerned. Thus, I maintain the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 304-A, 279 and 337, Indian Penal Code. 14. 13. In the light of the above discussion, I do not find any infirmity in the well-reasoned judgments recorded by both the Courts below so far as the conviction of the petitioner is concerned. Thus, I maintain the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 304-A, 279 and 337, Indian Penal Code. 14. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the occurrence had taken place in the year 1986 and period of more than 16 years has elapsed since then and the petitioner is a first offender. He prays that a lenient view may be taken with regard to the sentence imposed upon the petitioner. 15. I find merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The occurrence had taken place in July 1986. A period of more than 16 years has elapsed since then. The petitioner is stated to be the first offender. Keeping in view these facts, I reduced the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the petitioner under Section 304-A, Indian Penal Code, from two years to one year. However, the sentence of fine with its default clause is maintained. The sentence of imprisonment under Sections 279 and 337, Indian Penal Code, is also upheld. The substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. 16. Except for the modification in the quantum of sentence, as indicated above, the petition fails and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.