Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 981 (PNJ)

Rameshwar Dass v. State Of Haryana

2010-02-24

A.N.JINDAL

body2010
Judgment A.N.Jindal, J. 1 The accused petitioner Rameshwar Dass (herein referred as the accused) was tried for causing death of Mahender Singh by his rash and negligent act, while driving Haryana Roadways Bus bearing Reg. No. HR-22-6021. Consequently, he was convicted vide judgment dated 13.9.2001 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hisar and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 300/- under Section 279 and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 700/- under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal preferred by him was also dismissed vide judgment dated 12.2.2003. However, the sentence was reduced to one year under Section 304-A IPC. 2 In nutshell, the prosecution case is that on 12.06.1993, on receipt of a V.T.message about the accidental death of Mahender Singh s/o Ram Chander r/o Mehalsara, ASI Sadhu Ram along with other police officials reached General Hospital, Hisar and recorded the statement of complainant Hari Singh (herein referred as the complainant), wherein, he stated that out of his four brothers, Mahender Singh was working as driver on the tractor of Duni Chand son of Sheo:Lal Bishnoi for the last 1 months. On the fateful day, he along with his brother Ram Kishan was going to village Nangthala to meet their brother Mahender Singh. It was about 5.30 PM, when they reached near water supply, Chikanwas, they saw a tractor coming from the side of temple, driven by their brother Mahender Singh. On seeing them, their brother, turned the tractor. Meanwhile, a Haryana Roadways bus bearing Reg. No. HR-22-6021, being driven rashly and negligently by the accused, came from the Fatehabad side and hit the tractor, as a result of which the tractor turned turtle and Mahender Singh repeived injuries on his head. He was shifted to the Hospital, but he succumbed to the injuries. The FIR was registered against the accused and the case was investigated. 3 The completion of the investigation was followed by the presentation of the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused was accordingly charged under Section 304-A/279 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4 During trial, the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses. 3 The completion of the investigation was followed by the presentation of the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused was accordingly charged under Section 304-A/279 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4 During trial, the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses. 5 Thereafter, the statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 CrPC, wherein, he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in the case. Ultimately, the trial ended in conviction, as referred to above. In appeal as well, the conviction was maintained, but the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to one year under Section 304-A IPC. Hence, the present petition. 6 Heard. 7 At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not assailed the judgment of conviction and straightway sought indulgence of this Court in the sentence by extending some leniency towards the petitioner keeping in view the longevity of the proceedings and that he has undergone about four months of the substantive sentence. Counsel for the petitioner has also offered to compensate the legal heirs of the deceased. 8 Even otherwise, records transpire that the Courts below have returned concurrent findings of fact regarding the guilt of the petitioner on proper appreciation of the evidence. Hari Singh (PW1) and Ram Kishan (PW3) are the eye-witnesses of the occurrence and they have deposed consistently about the time, place and the manner of the accident. Both of them had seen the accused on the wheels of the offending bus. ASI Sadhu Ram (PW4), who recorded the initial version of Hari Singh complainant, proved the statement Ex.PA and the endorsement made by him over it as Ex.PA/1. He also disclosed that the FIR was registered on the basis of this statement. Further he proved the recovery of the driving license and the RC of the offending vehicle vide memo Ex.PE. PW5 Kapoor Singh is the photographer, who proved the photographs taken on the spot, strengthening the version of the eye-witnesses. The impugned judgment also sans any perversity, irregularity or illegality warranting interference by this Court. The conviction recorded by both the courts below is maintained. PW5 Kapoor Singh is the photographer, who proved the photographs taken on the spot, strengthening the version of the eye-witnesses. The impugned judgment also sans any perversity, irregularity or illegality warranting interference by this Court. The conviction recorded by both the courts below is maintained. 9 Now, coming to the quantum of sentence, the occurrence in this case took place in June, 1994; the accused has already undergone about three months of the substantive sentence and has also suffered a lot of agony due to protracted proceedings for the last about 16 years. That apart, no bad antecedents of the petitioner have been brought on record, so as to dub him as habitual offender. In such circumstances, it would be in the fitness of things, if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone by the accused, without any alteration in the sentence of fine. Ordered accordingly. 10 However, it is made clear that the reduction in the sentence of imprisonment is subject to payment of compensation of Rs. 30,000/- by the accused Rameshwar Dass, to the legal heirs of the deceased Mahender Singh, within three months from today, failing which the petition be deemed to have been dismissed without any alteration in the sentence.