Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 206 (PNJ)

Bir Chand v. State of Haryana

2003-02-04

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

body2003
JUDGMENT Ashutosh Mohunta, J. - Bir Chand has filed this petition against the judgment dated July 6, 1990 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, vide which his conviction under Sections 279 and 304-A, Indian Panel Code, awarded by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad, was upheld. However, his sentence under Sections 304-A, Indian Panel Code, has been reduced from 1-1/2 years to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. His sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- under Section 279, Indian Panel Code, has, however, been maintained by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad. 2. The petitioner, who was allegedly driving truck No. HRR-7588 on October 27, 1984, is alleged to have hit Motorcycle No. DHN-8978 being driven by Mahinder Singh on the National Highway near the main crossing of Ballabagh town, and thereby causing fatal injuries to Mahinder Singh and his wife Smt. Sheela (also described as Avinash Kaur), who was a pillion rider on the motorcycle. The petitioner fled away from the spot after leaving the truck there. The occurrence was witnessed by Manjit Singh P.W., who happened to be standing on the road outside his workshop, and Mool Chand P.W. Both the injured were removed to the local hospital. However, as the condition of both of them was serious, they were taken to the All Indian Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, where both the injured died. 3. Report of the occurrence was lodged by Manjit Singh with S.I. Raghbir Singh of Police Station City, Ballabagh, who happened to be patrolling nearby. On the basis of the statement made by Manjit Singh, formal first information report (Ex. PB/2) was recorded by S.I. Shiv Nath at the Police Station. Both the truck and the motor cycle were taken into possession by the Police. 4. Post-mortem examination on the dead bodies of Mahinder Singh and his wife Smt. Sheela (also described as Avinash Kaur) was conducted. 5. S.I. Raghvir Singh recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161, Criminal Procedure Code He also prepared the rough site plan of the place of occurrence. The petitioner was arrested and challaned on completion of the investigation. 6. The petitioner was charged and tried for the offence under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A, Indian Panel Code, by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridabad. 7. The petitioner was arrested and challaned on completion of the investigation. 6. The petitioner was charged and tried for the offence under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A, Indian Panel Code, by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridabad. 7. In order to bring home the charge against the petitioner, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses. Manjit Singh and Mool Chand, who were eye- witnesses of the occurrence, appeared as P.W.2 and P.W.3 and supported the case of the prosecution as detailed above. 8. When examined under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded that he was not driving the truck on the material date and time at the place of occurrence. He maintained that he had been falsely implicated. No evidence in defence was led by the petitioner. 9. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad, believed the prosecution evidence and convicted and sentenced the petitioner, as indicated in the earlier part of the judgment. The appeal filed by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have examined the record in evidence. 11. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the identity of the petitioner could not be proved as no identification parade was conducted. According to the learned counsel, both the eye-witnesses were not earlier known to the petitioner. Thus, it was not possible for them to identify him. 12. I do not find merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner fled away from the spot after alighting from the truck. At that time both the eye-witnesses were at the spot. They had seen him while running from the spot. He has specifically been named in the F.I.R., which was lodged on the basis of the statement made by Manjit Singh (P.W.2) immediately after the occurrence. The driving licence of the petitioner was recovered from the truck, which proved beyond any shadow of doubt that it was the petitioner who was driving the truck at the relevant time. The presence of both the eye-witnesses cannot doubted by any stretch of imagination as both the injured Mahinder Singh and his wife Smt. Sheela (also described as Avinash Kaur) were taken to the hospital by them. The presence of both the eye-witnesses cannot doubted by any stretch of imagination as both the injured Mahinder Singh and his wife Smt. Sheela (also described as Avinash Kaur) were taken to the hospital by them. When the accused was specifically named in the F.I.R., then it was not necessary to hold the test identification parade by the Police. It stands amply proved by the prosecution that it was the petitioner who was driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time and place. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petition is, thus, rejected. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it is not proved that the petitioner was driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner. His contention is that both the eye-witnesses have stated that the accused was driving the truck at a very high speed. Thus, it is not proved that he was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. 13. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is also without any merit. From the very incident it is proved from any shadow of doubt that the petitioner was driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner. He did not care to ensure the safety of the vehicle coming from the opposite direction. Had the petitioner been driving the truck in a careful manner, it would not have hit the motorcycle coming from the opposite side. Moreover, it is not the defence of the petitioner that he was driving the truck in a careful manner and not rashly and negligently. He has merely taken the plea that at the relevant place and time he was not driving the offending vehicle. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is thus rejected. In the light of the above discussion, I uphold the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 279 and 304-A, Indian Penal Code. Lastly it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was a youngman at the time of the accident. He is the only bread-winner of the family. The accident had taken place more than 18 years ago. Keeping in view all these circumstances, he prays that a lenient view may be taken with regard to the sentence awarded to the petitioner. I find merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel. He is the only bread-winner of the family. The accident had taken place more than 18 years ago. Keeping in view all these circumstances, he prays that a lenient view may be taken with regard to the sentence awarded to the petitioner. I find merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel. The occurrence had taken place more than 18 years ago. The petitioner is the only bread- winner of the family. No useful purpose would be served by sending him to the prison again. In the light of these circumstances, I reduce the sentence of the petitioner to the one already undergone by him. However, the sentence of fine with its default clause is maintained. The petitioner is directed to deposit the amount of fine within one month from the receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. On the deposit of fine by the petitioner, his bail bonds shall stand discharged. Except for the modification in the quantum of sentences, as indicated above, the petition fails and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.