Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 475 (HP)

Satnam Singh v. State of H. P.

2013-05-28

DEV DARSHAN SUD

body2013
JUDGMENT Dev Darshan Sud, J. The petitioner challenges his conviction passed by the two courts below for offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC read with Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 14.9.1996, PW9 ASI Sh. OM Parkash along with Constable Roshan Lal, Constable Rajinder Kumar and HHC Sh.Tilak Raj were on patrol duty near Damtal bus stand. They received information from complainant PW1 Sh. Tilak Raj that while he was going from Channi to Damtal at about 5.15 p.m. to purchase some goods and reached near Indora curve, he noticed two boys Bholu and Gola riding on the scooter who were coming from Damtal towards Channi. He saw truck bearing No. PAT-5295 driving behind the scooter. The truck, according to him, was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The driver of the truck struck against the scooter as a result both scooterists fell on the road. Gola son of Sh. Amar Chand died on the spot while his brother Bholu sustained grievous injuries. He lifted both of them to a private hospital at Pathankot for treatment. On his inquiry, the truck driver disclosed his name Satnam Singh son of Sh. Amar Singh and that the accident was a result of his rash and negligent act. 3. The prosecution examined nine witnesses. It was urged on the evidence on record that the petitioner is not guilty of any offence for the reason that he was not driving the truck at the time of the occurrence. The learned trial Court rejected this submission on the totality of the evidence holding that according to the statement Ext.PW1/A of complainant PW1 Tilak Raj, who was the only eye witness, not only described the entire incident in graphic detail but that the truck stopped briefly after some distance where the driver disclosed his name as Satnam Singh son of Sh. Amar Singh. He had disclosed this information to the police. In cross-examination, he states that he has been the Pradhan of the Panchayat for a period of eleven years. It was suggested to him that both the deceased were engaged in illicit trade of liquor and that this witness was a stock police witness. He denied this suggestion. He also denied that the scooter had fallen down because of the uneven road surfaced. It was suggested to him that both the deceased were engaged in illicit trade of liquor and that this witness was a stock police witness. He denied this suggestion. He also denied that the scooter had fallen down because of the uneven road surfaced. It was suggested to him that the petitioner had been roped in at the behest of the police which suggestion was denied. The post mortem reports confirmed the death of both the deceased as having been caused in the accident. The petitioner appealed. 4. The learned Sessions Judge re-appreciates the entire evidence holding that there was not even a single suggestion to the complainant PW1 Tilak Raj that the accused was not driving the truck but it was somebody else, nor it was suggested that the truck was not found parked near the spot. The case put forward by the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated at the behest of the police was not accepted for lack of any foundation/evidence. From the statement Ext. PW1/A which was made by PW1 Tilak Raj immediately after the accident, he had disclosed the name of the accused. No mechanical defect was found in the truck. PW6 Dr. Sanjay Mahajan, who conducted the post mortem of both the deceased, opined that they had died because of shock caused by head injuries. The learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of the learned trial Court. It is in these circumstances that this revision petition has been filed challenging the legality of the findings of both the Courts below. 5. It is urged by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner was not involved in the accident as it has been unable to establish by reasonable and cogent evidence that the petitioner was actually present at the spot. Learned counsel urges that it was not possible that the driver would have hit the scooterists and would have disclosed his name thereafter. He also submits that no identification parade was carried out in which event the identity of the appellant ascertained and criminality could not be fastened upon him. I do not find any weight in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Having given my careful thought to the evidence on record, I have no doubt in my mind that the accident was, in fact, caused by the petitioner herein. I do not find any weight in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Having given my careful thought to the evidence on record, I have no doubt in my mind that the accident was, in fact, caused by the petitioner herein. The submission that the petitioner has been falsely implicated by the police, cannot be accepted as there is no foundation in fact or law. Re-appreciation of evidence is not the domain of this Court in revisional jurisdiction except in case of perversity but having gone through the evidence again, I cannot fault with the reasoning of the two courts below. There is, thus, no merit in this revision petition which is accordingly dismissed. 6. In Dalbir Singh versus State of Haryana, (2000) 5 SCC 82 , the Supreme Court held: “1. When automobiles have become death traps any leniency shown to drivers who are found guilty of rash driving would be at the risk of further escalation of road accidents. All those who are manning the steering of automobiles, particularly professional drivers, must be kept under constant reminders of their duty to adopt utmost care and also of the consequences befalling them in cases of dereliction. One of the most effective ways of keeping such drivers under mental vigil is to maintain a deterrent element in the sentencing sphere. Any latitude shown to them in that sphere would tempt them to make driving frivolous and a frolic…... 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 Section 304-A IPC as attracting the benevolent provisions of Section 4 of the P.O. 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. 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 think 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 for 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 high rate of motor accidents due to callous driving of automobiles.” (P.84, 85 & 87) 7. These principles find reiteration in B. Nagabhushanam Vs. State of Karnataka, (2008) 5 SCC 730 , where the Court holds:. “14.We are of the opinion that six months’ simple imprisonment and a direction to the appellant to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for commission of the offence punishable under Section 304A and simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be said to be shocking……………………. 16. In Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab [ (1979) 4 SCC 719 ], this Court held: "5. Nevertheless, sentencing must have a policy of correction. This driver, if he has -to become a good driver, must have a better training in traffic laws and moral responsibility, with special reference to the potential injury to human life and limb. Punishment in this area must, therefore, be accompanied by these components. The State, we hope, will attach a course for better driving together with a livelier sense of responsibility, when the punishment is for driving offences. May be, the State may consider, in cases of men with poor families, occasional parole and reformatory courses on appropriate application, without the rigour of the old rules which are subject to Government discretion”. (P.734&735) 8. May be, the State may consider, in cases of men with poor families, occasional parole and reformatory courses on appropriate application, without the rigour of the old rules which are subject to Government discretion”. (P.734&735) 8. In the present case what I find is that two youngmen both brothers have died in the accident. I do not find any perversity in the appreciation of evidence. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds, if any, furnished by the petitioner shall stand cancelled. The petitioner shall surrender before the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class Nurpur, District kangra, who will ensure due execution of the sentence forthwith.