Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1 (PNJ)

Faruq Ahmad v. State of Punjab

2013-01-07

RAM CHAND GUPTA

body2013
JUDGMENT Mr. Ram Chand Gupta, J.(Oral) - The present revision petition has been filed against judgment dated 23.07.2012 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala vide which appeal filed by petitioner against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.11.2011 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rajpura arising out of FIR no. 248 dated 27.12.2004, under Sections 279/337/304A IPC, registered at police station City Rajpura convicting petitioner-accused for offences under Sections 279/304A IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month for offence under Section 279 IPC; and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month for offence under Section 304A IPC, was dismissed. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through both the judgments rendered by learned courts below. 3. Brief allegations are that, on 24.12.2011 at about 9.40 PM, PWG Subhash Chander, complainant was present at Gagan chowk, Rajpura when he observed that Gurnam Singh (deceased) was driving scooter bearing registration number PB-11C-8182 and was in the process of crossing the chowk when, in the meantime, petitioner-accused came while driving the truck bearing registration number JK-01G-6984 from Sirhind bypass in a rash and negligent manner and could not control the same and hit against the scooter and the scooterist at some distance. As a result of which, scooterist sustained multiple injuries. He was removed to the hospital by the complainant alongwith Constable Karamjit Singh and PHG Kamal Kumar in his Ambulance Van and however, later on Gurnam Singh succumbed to the injuries. Prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses. Learned trial court by placing reliance upon the deposition of complainant and eye-witness of the occurrence, PW5 PWG Subhash Chander and other oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that prosecution has been able to prove the case against the petitioner for offences under Sections 279/304A IPC beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt and convicted the petitioner-accused for offences under Sections 279/304A IPC and sentenced him as aforementioned. Appeal filed by petitioner-accused against the said judgment was also dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala. 4. Appeal filed by petitioner-accused against the said judgment was also dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show to this Court any serious infirmity in the impugned judgments passed by learned courts below warranting interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. I have also perused both the judgments passed by learned courts below. The same are based on evidence. 5. Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed so far as judgment of conviction as passed by learned trial court and as affirmed by learned appellate court is concerned. 6. However, so far as order of sentence is concerned, it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he is not a previous convict and that he has been facing agony of trial for the last about eight years. It is further contended that he has already undergone about 4-1/2 months of the sentence. Hence, it is contended that he be given benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 or the sentence be reduced to already undergone by the petitioner. 7. Law on the point as to whether the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 should be granted to the accused- convicted for offence under Section 304-A IPC, has been settled by Hon’ble Apex Court in Dalbir Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2000 (2) RCR (Crl.) 816 by observing that the courts should not as a normal rule, invoke the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 when the accused is convicted of the offence under Section 304-A IPC in causing death of human beings by rash or negligent driving. Relevant paragraphs no.12 and 13 of the judgment read as under: “12. In State of Karnataka v. Krishna alias Raju, (1987) 1 SCC 538 : ( AIR 1987 SC 861 : 1987 Crl.L.J. 776) this Court did not allow a sentence of fine, imposed on a driver who was convicted under S.304-A IPC to remain in force although the High Court too had confirmed the said sentence when an accused was convicted of the offence of driving a bus callously and causing death of a human being. In that case this Court enhanced the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for six months besides imposed a fine. 13. In that case this Court enhanced the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for six months besides imposed a fine. 13. Bearing in mind the galloping trend in road accidents in India and the devastating consequences visiting the victims and their families, Criminal Courts cannot treat the nature of the offence under S. 304-A I.P.C. as attracting the benevolent provisions of S.4 of the PO Act. While considering the quantum of sentence, to be imposed for the offence of causing death by rash or negligent driving of automobiles, one of the prime considerations should be deterrence. A professional driver pedals the accelerator of the automobile almost throughout his working hours. He must constantly inform himself that he cannot afford to have a single moment of laxity or inattentiveness when his leg is on the pedal of a vehicle in locomotion. He cannot and should not take a chance thinking that a rash driving need not necessarily cause any accident, or even if any accident occurs it need not necessarily result in the death of any human being; or even if such death ensues he might not be convicted of the offence, and lastly that even if he is convicted he would be dealt with leniently by the Court. He must always keep in his mind the fear psyche that if he is convicted of the offence of causing death of a human being due to his callous driving of vehicle he cannot escape from jail sentence. This is the role which the Courts can play, particularly at the level of trial Courts, for lessening the highrate of motor accidents due to callous driving of automobiles.” 8. This judgment was subsequently followed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in B.Nagabhushanam v. State of Karnataka, [2008(4) Law Herald (SC) 2487] : 2008(3) RCR (Crl.)50 and the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 was denied to the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC. 9. Moreover, peculiar facts of the case are that, petitioner-accused had driven his truck in a very rash and negligent manner even at a chowk and hence, he could not control the vehicle even after observing that deceased was crossing the chowk. He had taken away valuable life of an innocent person. 9. Moreover, peculiar facts of the case are that, petitioner-accused had driven his truck in a very rash and negligent manner even at a chowk and hence, he could not control the vehicle even after observing that deceased was crossing the chowk. He had taken away valuable life of an innocent person. Hence, in view of peculiar facts of this present case and in view of the legal proposition settled by Hon’ble Apex Court in Dalbir Singh’s case (supra) and B.Nagabhushanam’s case (supra) petitioner-accused does not deserve the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act. 10. However, there is no dispute that petitioner is not a previous convict and he has been facing trial for the last about eight years and he is the only bread winner of the family hence, some leniency in the matter of sentence can be granted to him. 11. Hence, in view of these facts, the present revision petition is partly accepted. While affirming the judgment of conviction as passed by learned trial Court and as affirmed by learned appellate court, the order of sentence is modified to the extent that the period of sentence for offence under Section 304A IPC is reduced to nine months while maintaining the other sentences. Disposed of accordingly.