Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 207 (PNJ)

Gursharanjit Singh v. State of Punjab

2007-02-05

T.P.S.MANN

body2007
JUDGMENT T.P.S. Mann, J. - The petitioner has challenged the order passed by Sessions Judge, Patiala on 12.8.2066, whereby charges under Sections 304/337/338/427 Indian Penal Code have been framed against him. 2. As per the FIR, on 22.1.2006 at about 5.00 p.m., Gurcharan Singh- complainant and Lakhvir Singh were talking in front of the spare parts shop of the latter situated on Jakhal Road, Patran. At that time, Mehal Singh Patwari was going from Patran to his village on a scooter bearing registration No. PB-11-M-5671 at a slow speed on the proper side of the road. In the meantime, one Tata Safari vehicle bearing registration No. HR-24-F-7153 came from the side of Moonak at a very high speed and being driven in a zig-zag manner. The driver of the said Tata Safari appeared to be under the influence of alcohol. The said driver dashed his vehicle against the scooter of Mehal Singh Patwari and dragged him along with his scooter upto 15-20 karams. The complainant and Lakhvir Singh rushed towards that place so as to take care of the victim. However, on account of the injuries received on his head, forehead, legs and other parts of the body, the victim died at the spot. The driver of the Tata Safari also stopped the vehicle due to obstruction caused by the scooter. However, when the complainant and Lakhvir Singh were looking after the victim, the driver of the said vehicle, while walking abnormally, ran away. On enquiry from the persons, who had gathered there, it was learnt that it was the present petitioner, who was driving the vehicle and was coming from Garg Place, Moonak Road, Patran after attending a marriage function there. In the meantime, Balbir Kumar, a resident of Patran, reached there and told the complainant that the aforementioned Tata Safari also hit against bicycle of his maternal uncles son Rakesh Kumar near a sheller on Moonak Road, Patran. On the basis of the aforementioned statement of Gurcharan Singh, FIR No. 14 dated 22.1.2006 was registered in Police Station, Pataran under Sections 304/337/338/427 Indian Penal Code. 3. After the completion of the investigation, the challan was presented and the offence under Section 304 Indian Penal Code, being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. 3. After the completion of the investigation, the challan was presented and the offence under Section 304 Indian Penal Code, being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. After hearing the Public Prosecutor for the State and defence counsel, learned Sessions Judge, Patiala held that prima facie case under Sections 304/337/338/427 Indian Penal Code was made out and the accused petitioner was, accordingly, charged for the said offences. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present revision in this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the facts and circumstances of the case, if taken as such, offence under Section 304-A Indian Penal Code was made out and the petitioner could not be charged for an offence under Section 304 Indian Penal Code as it was, at the most, a case of rash and negligent driving. There was no intention to kill on the part of the petitioner. It could not be inferred from the fact that the petitioner was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and thus liable to be charged for an offence under Section 304 Indian Penal Code. For such an offence, the prosecution was required to establish a case of extreme negligence and rashness, which was not available on the material placed before the trial Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the various documents placed before me. 6. It is revealed during the investigation of the case that the petitioner attended a marriage function in Garg Palace, Moonak Road, Patron. From there he started driving Tata Safari vehicle bearing No. HR-24-F-7153. Reaching near a sheller situated on the Moonak Road, the Tata Safari dashed against a cycle, which was being plied by Rakesh Kumar, cousin of Balbir Kumar. After hitting the cyclist, the petitioner proceeded further. At some distance from the first incident, Mehal Singh Patwari was going on a scooter when the petitioner, while driving the Tata Safari reached near the scooter of Mehal Singh Patwari. The petitioner was found to be driving the vehicle at a high speed and in a zig-zag manner. This driving of the vehicle in a zig-zag manner and that too at a very high speed, was clear indication of the petitioner being under the influence of alcohol. The petitioner was found to be driving the vehicle at a high speed and in a zig-zag manner. This driving of the vehicle in a zig-zag manner and that too at a very high speed, was clear indication of the petitioner being under the influence of alcohol. When the Tata Safari driven by the petitioner hit the scooter of Mehal Singh Patwari both, Mehal Singh Patwari and his scooter were dragged upto a distance of 15/20 karams. due to the presence of the scooter in the road itself after having been brought down, the petitioner was not able to drive his vehicle any further. He came out of the said vehicle and ran away from three. His gait was found to be abnormal. All this shows that the petitioner was drunk while he was driving the Tata Safari on 22.1.2006. He first injured one Rakesh Kumar, after dashing his Tata Safari against his cycle. Thereafter, he banged the scooter of Mehal Singh Patwari, as a result of which the latter died on account of the injuries received by him on his head, forehead, legs and other parts of the body. 7. In Court on its own motion v. State of Punjab and others, 2005(4) RCR(Crl.) 673 (P&H), a Division Bench of this Court directed the framing of charges under Sections 304 or 302 Indian Penal Code, where fatal accident occurred on account of extreme recklessness or negligence by drivers. It was held that though the accused may not have intention to cause death while driving the vehicle with extreme negligence and rashness but he could very well know that his act was likely to cause death or such bodily injury as was likely to cause death. The concluding part of the judgment is reproduced hereinbelow :- "We are, therefore, of the opinion that in cases covered by the News items and in similar matters not necessarily arising out of motor accidents which are the result of utter callousness, that come to our notice with disturbing regularity and are a matter of deep concern, a prosecution for any offence punishable only under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code may not be in order, and the circumstances may warrant more vigorous action. We, therefore, issue a direction to Courts subordinate to this Court to ensure that in cases of extreme negligence and rashness and only where the evidence and circumstances so warrant, a charge under Section 304 or 302 of the Indian Penal Code adequate to the circumstances of the case be framed along with an alternative charge under Section 304-A of the Code. The matter is disposed of accordingly." 8. In the present case, the petitioner after attending a marriage function and while being drunk, drove the vehicle with extreme negligence and rashness and caused injuries to Rakesh Kumar and thereafter committed culpable homicide causing the death of Mehal Singh Patwari. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Sat Pal v. State of Haryana, 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 575, to contend that merely because victim dashed to death by vehicle driven by accused, it could not be inferred that it was a case of murder or culpable homicide. I have gone through the said citation. In that case, it was shown to be simple rash and negligent driving of the accused therein. From the same it could not be said that the accused had either intended to cause death of the victim or had knowledge that he was likely to cause death by such an act. On the other hand in the present case, it has been prima facie shown that the petitioner drove the vehicle in an extremely negligent and rash manner and while doing so, he was under the influence of alcohol. 10. In view of the above, no relief can be granted to the present petitioner. The revision is without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. 11. Nothing stated herein shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Petition dismissed.