Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 681 (PNJ)

Mohinder Singh v. State Of Punjab

2010-01-28

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2010
Judgment Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. Mohinder son of Dalip Singh was tried by the Court of Judicial magistrate Ist Class, Patiala. The trial Court found petitioner guilty of offence under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. The trial Court sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of rs.500/- for offence under Sec.304-A IPC. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The petitioner was also sentenced under Sec.279 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.250/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. Both these sentences were ordered to run concurrent. 2. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner had filed an appeal. The same was dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions judge, Patiala. The conviction was upheld and sentence was maintained. Petitioner was named as accused in case FIR No.98 dated 20.3.1997 registered at Police Station Sadar, Patiala, under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. 3. On 20.3.1997 at 11.00 A. M. in Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, Kishori Lal had made his statement Ex. PD to Rakesh Kumar, Sub Inspector, who was posted as incharge of Police Post Bahadurgarh. Kishori Lal stated that he was resident of village Jansua, falling within jurisdiction of Police Station Sadar, Rajpura, and was engaged in labour work. He along with his nephew Kalu Ram, brother-in-law Mehar Chand was going to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, for medical check up. They were travelling in three wheeler bearing registration No. PIJ 5452. Kalu ram was driving the three wheeler. When they reached near G. T. Road, Rajpura, in the revenue estate of village Chamarheri Mithu Majra, at about 9.30 A. M. , from the Patiala side one bus bearing registration No. PB-11-E-9583 belonging to PRTC came at a very high speed and collided with three wheeler. The complainant and Subhash Kumar fell on the ground, out of the three wheeler and found that Mehar Chand had died at the spot. Kalu Ram was seriously injured. He was brought to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. Name of the driver of offending bus later learnt was Mohinder Singh son of Dalip Singh. Kalu Ram, who was got admitted at Rajindra Hospital for medical treatment, after some time also expired. Kalu Ram was seriously injured. He was brought to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. Name of the driver of offending bus later learnt was Mohinder Singh son of Dalip Singh. Kalu Ram, who was got admitted at Rajindra Hospital for medical treatment, after some time also expired. It was stated that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of Mohinder Singh who was driving bus No. PB-11-E- 9583. 4. The above said FIR was investigated and report under Sec.173 cr. P. C. was submitted. 5. Petitioner was charged for offence under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC on the ground that due to rash and negligent driving, he had caused death of mehar Chand and Kalu Ram. 6. Prosecution examined Dr. Deepak Walia PW.1. He had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Kalu Ram. He opined that cause of death was due to injury to vital organ brain as a result of head injury. All the injuries were ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He had also conducted autopsy on the dead body of Mehar Chand. This witnesses was not subjected to cross-examination. 7. Pw.2 Jawahar Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, carried mechanical test of the bus and the three wheeler and submitted his test reports Ex. PW.2/a and pw.2/b, respectively. 8. Pw.3 Hakam Singh, Inspector, PRTC, proved the duty roster, according to which, petitioner was posted as Driver of the offending bus. PW.4 Subhash kumar and PW.6 Kishori Lal, complainant, being the eye witnesses deposed against the petitioner. PW.5 Rakesh Kumar had recorded the statement of PW.6 kishori Lal, on basis of which formal FIR was registered and he has also investigated the case. 9. Thereafter, the prosecution has closed its evidence. Statement of the accused was recorded under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. He has stated that accident has not occurred due to his fault but due to rash and negligent driving of the three wheeler. In defence, Bhupinder Singh was examined as DW.1. Accused himself appeared as DW.2. He has stated that he saw a tractor trolley coming from the opposite direction. He was driving the bus at a speed of 40/42 Kms. per hour. When he reached near the tractor trolley, the three wheeler suddenly turned to its right and over took the tractor trolley. Accused himself appeared as DW.2. He has stated that he saw a tractor trolley coming from the opposite direction. He was driving the bus at a speed of 40/42 Kms. per hour. When he reached near the tractor trolley, the three wheeler suddenly turned to its right and over took the tractor trolley. He tried his best to save the three wheeler when the accident took place. 10. In the present case, from the duty roster produced by PW.3 Hakam singh, it is proved that the petitioner was the driver of the offending vehicle. Petitioner, in his statement under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. and appearing as a defence witness, has admitted the accident. However, accused pleaded that driver of the three wheeler was responsible for the accident and was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner. it was to be determined by the trial court whether petitioner was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner or not. After perusal of the evidence, the trial Court came to conclusion that the petitioner was responsible for the accident. This finding has been affirmed by the lower Appellate Court. 11. Counsel for the petitioner, except to point out discrepancies and improvements, has not succeeded in pointing out any patent illegality or irregularity in the judgments of the two Courts below. The view formulated by the two Courts below is not perverse. There is no misreading of the evidence. Simply because that another view can be taken, this Court will not substitute the finding of two Courts below. Thus, I do not find any merit in the contention of counsel for the petitioner that the view propounded by the defence ought to be accepted. PW.6 kishori Lal and PW.4 Subhash Kumar have withstood the test of cross-examination. They are categoric that the accident had occurred due to the conduct of present petitioner. Thus, there is no merit in the present petition. 12. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the present case, accident had taken place on 20.3.1997. Petitioner has already suffered mental pain and agony of protracted trial of about 1\3 years. He has stated that before the present occurrence and thereafter, petitioner has not committed any offence. Petitioner is the sole bread earner of the family. 13. Counsel for the State has placed on record the custody certificate. Petitioner has already suffered mental pain and agony of protracted trial of about 1\3 years. He has stated that before the present occurrence and thereafter, petitioner has not committed any offence. Petitioner is the sole bread earner of the family. 13. Counsel for the State has placed on record the custody certificate. Petitioner has only undergone 15 days of actual sentence. Taking the submission made by counsel for the petitioner as mitigating circumstance, this Court cannot ignore the fact that in the accident, two persons had died. Therefore, taking into consideration mitigating and aggravating circumstances, the ends of justice will be fully met in case sentence awarded upon the petitioner under Sec.304-A IPC is reduced from one year to eight months rigorous imprisonment. However, sentence of fine is maintained. 14. With the modification in the sentence, presence revision petition is disposed of.