Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2099 (PNJ)

Surinder Singh v. State of Haryana

2008-12-11

K.C.PURI

body2008
JUDGMENT K. C. Puri, J.:- This Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment dated 25.8.2008 passed by Shri V.S. Malik, Sessions Judge, Rewari. Vide the impugned judgment, the learned Sessions Judge partly accepted the appeal and reduced the sentence of two years awarded by the learned trial Court for the offence under Section 304-A IPC to one year while keeping the sentence of fine and its default clause intact and further reduced the sentence of six months awarded for the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC to three months. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. Shri Virender Malik, the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kosli vide his judgment/order dated 13.6.2006 convicted the petitioner under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 279 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months under Section 304-A IPC. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. The controversy lies within a very narrow compass and a brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice. 4. On 22.4.1995, Head Constable Jagdish Parshad along with Constables Pardeep Kumar and Krishan Kumar was present at Rohrai turn in connection with patrolling. In the meantime, Om Parkash made his statement before him in which he alleged that on that day, at about 7.30 PM, he went to call his brothers namely Krishan, Jaipal, Chet Ram and Duli Chand who were taking bath in the pond. When they were going back to their house and reached near the house of Madhu Ram, then a tractor bearing registration No.HYM-1381 which was driven by the petitioner came at high speed in a negligent manner. Without blowing any horn, it hit his brother Chet Ram. The front tyre of the tractor crossed over the body of Chet Ram who succumbed to the injuries at the spot. 5. On his statement, a criminal case was registered and after completion of investigation, challan was presented against the petitioner. 6. The petitioner was charge-sheeted accordingly to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 7. The front tyre of the tractor crossed over the body of Chet Ram who succumbed to the injuries at the spot. 5. On his statement, a criminal case was registered and after completion of investigation, challan was presented against the petitioner. 6. The petitioner was charge-sheeted accordingly to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 7. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Om Parkash, PW-2 Duli Chand, PW-3 Shyam Kishore mechanic, PW-4 Inspector Jai Narayan, PW-5 ASI Jagdish Parshad and PW-6 Dr. B.K. Sharma. 8. On conclusion of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused/petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C wherein he denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence. 9. In his defence, the petitioner examined DW-1 Balbir and DW-2 Nathu Ram, retired Deputy Superintendent of Police, (in short DSP). 10. The trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner, as noticed above. 11. His appeal was also partly accepted as has been stated above. 12. Still feeling aggrieved against the judgment of the Appellate Court, the petitioner is before this Court in the present Criminal Revision. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that according to the prosecution version, the occurrence had taken place in the path of the village while the accused was driving Eicher tractor. It has been further submitted that Eicher tractor and the trolley are heavy vehicles and the speed of the tractor cannot be more on the village path, otherwise it would cause a loud noise which can be heard from a great distance. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that Shri Nathu Ram, DSP, Kosli had conducted an inquiry in this case and vide his report Exhibit DA, he concluded that the deceased tried to catch hold of the trolley from the back side and slipped. On that count, he had received injuries. 15. It has been further contended that both the Courts below have discarded the testimony of Shri Nathu Ram, retired DSP. DW-1 Balbir also supported the version of the accused and his testimony has also been discarded merely on the ground that he is inimical to the complainant. However, the fact remains that the DSP is an impartial witness and his testimony should have been given due weight as he had no axe to grind against the complainant. 16. DW-1 Balbir also supported the version of the accused and his testimony has also been discarded merely on the ground that he is inimical to the complainant. However, the fact remains that the DSP is an impartial witness and his testimony should have been given due weight as he had no axe to grind against the complainant. 16. Lastly, it has been submitted that the petitioner has already undergone incarceration for a period of 3 months and 9 days and an amount of Rs.65,000/- has also been paid to the legal heirs of the deceased. So, a prayer has been made for reduction of sentence. 17. The learned State counsel has supported the judgment of the trial Court. He has contended that both the Courts below have recorded finding of guilt against the petitioner. The report of DSP is irrelevant because he was not present at the time of occurrence. The material witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. In face of concurrent findings of guilt recorded by both the Courts below against the accused, no case for interference is made out. The sentence cannot be said to be excessive as the first Appellate Court has already reduced the sentence from two years to one year under Section 304-A IPC. 18. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and have gone through the record of the case. 19. So far as submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that in the village path, the tractor cannot ply at a high speed is concerned, the same does not carry any weight. The prosecution is not required to prove the speed of the vehicle but the factum of rash and negligent driving. The eye witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution on all the material particulars and have been cross-examined at length but nothing could be brought on the file to discard their sworn testimony. The counsel for the petitioner has failed to create a dent in the concurrent findings of both the Courts below regarding the guilt of the accused. 20. So far as reliance on the report, Exhibit DA, of retired DSP is concerned, both the Courts below have rightly discarded his testimony. Admittedly, he was not present at the time of occurrence. Investigation, contrary to the statements of eye witnesses, has rightly been discarded by both the Courts below. 21. 20. So far as reliance on the report, Exhibit DA, of retired DSP is concerned, both the Courts below have rightly discarded his testimony. Admittedly, he was not present at the time of occurrence. Investigation, contrary to the statements of eye witnesses, has rightly been discarded by both the Courts below. 21. The testimony of DW-1 Balbir has also been discarded by the Courts below. He is inimical witness and has not stated the true facts. The medical evidence corroborates the version given by the eye witnesses. The crush injury on the head of the deceased proves the fact that the accident could not have taken place in the manner as suggested by the accused, including DW-1 and DW-2. 22. As regards the prayer for reduction of sentence is concerned, it is to be seen that the occurrence relates to the year 1995. The petitioner has already undergone incarceration for a period of 3 months and 9 days. It has been further submitted that compensation amounting to Rs.65,000/- has already been to the legal heirs of the deceased. Originally, the sentence awarded to the petitioner was two years under Section 304-A IPC which was reduced by the first Appellate Court to one year. The petitioner has taken the life of a minor boy. The Courts have also to keep in mind the plight of the victim at the time of awarding sentence. 23. Therefore, taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met in case the sentence awarded to the petitioner under Section 304-A IPC is reduced to nine months. The sentence of fine awarded under Section 304-A IPC and sentence imposed under Section 279 IPC awarded by the first Appellate Court stand confirmed. Both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. This Criminal Revision stands disposed of, in the above terms. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. --------------------------