Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 938 (HP)

Vigyan Dass v. State of H. P.

2014-07-18

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2014
Judgment : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (oral) This case has a chequered history and the petitioner is in the third round of litigation. 2. It appears from the record that an FIR was lodged on 1.5.1996 at Police Station, Una, in terms of telephonic message received from Chowkidar, Police Post City, Una about the accident, which was allegedly caused by the petitioner-accused while driving vehicle-truck bearing registration No. HIB-1321 rashly and negligently, in which three persons, namely, Bhupinder Grover, Parvesh Mehta and Narinder Singh, who were traveling in Maruit van bearing registration No. DL-2C-D-5936, sustained injuries and were taken to hospital. The Investigating Officer had filed an application before the Chief Medical Officer, District Hospital, Una, whereby permission was sought whether the injured were fit to make statement(s). The only statement of injured Narinder Singh was recorded who was found fit to make statement by the doctor/expert. Bhupinder Grover succumbed to the injuries in the hospital on the same day. 3. The police conducted the investigation and filed charge-sheet in terms of mandate of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for the short “the Cr. P.C.” before the Court of competent jurisdiction, i.e. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, District Una, H.P. The accused was charge-sheeted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, for short “the IPC”. 4. Prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses in order to prove its case. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded in terms of mandate of Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The accused has also examined two witnesses in defence. 5. The accused was convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 28.5.2001 in case No. 104-1 of 1997; was subject matter of Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2001, before the Additional Sessions Judge, Una, (HP), who set-aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court; remanded the case on the ground that notice of accusation was not correctly put to him and passed the order, as per law. 6. The charge-sheet was prepared afresh in terms of the remand order, was read over and explained to the accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 7. 6. The charge-sheet was prepared afresh in terms of the remand order, was read over and explained to the accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 7. On 14th September, 2004, learned Counsel for the prosecution made statement that the evidence already led by the prosecution be treated as evidence after the fresh charge-sheet. Learned Counsel for the accused prayed for calling the prosecution witnesses to conduct cross examination. Accordingly, the learned Counsel for the accused cross-examined the prosecution witnesses afresh. PW-6, Constable Shakti Kumar, Mechanic was crossexamined, at length. 8. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C., incriminating circumstances were put to him; was convicted by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 30th September, 2005 in Case No. 104-1-1996 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 1,000/-; six months and fine of Rs. 500/-; imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/-; imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 & 304 IPC, respectively. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner-accused-convict was ordered to undergo imprisonment for one month for the commission of offence punishable under Section 279 IPC and for 15 days, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 337 IPC and for two months each, under Sections 338 and 304-A IPC. 9. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner-accused filed Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2005 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Una, District Una; was dismissed while upholding the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court. However, the sentence under Section 304-A IPC was reduced to one year. 10. Feeling dis-satisfied with the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in the aforesaid criminal appeal, the petitioner-accused has filed the present Criminal Revision. 11. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record. 12. It pains me to record that the petitioneraccused is facing trial right from 1st May, 1996 and this may be a ground for reducing his sentence while concluding the judgment. 13. The accused has virtually accepted the factum of accident and other aspects, while replying to the questions put to him in the statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. on 27th September, 2009. 13. The accused has virtually accepted the factum of accident and other aspects, while replying to the questions put to him in the statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. on 27th September, 2009. It is apt to reproduce the second last question put to the accused-petitioner and the reply to the said question given by him, herein: “Q. Do you want to say anything else? Ans. My truck was slow and steering of the truck had gone free and there was a mechanical defect which crept in suddenly.” Meaning thereby, the accused has not denied the factum of accident, causing injuries to the three persons, resulting into the death of one of the injured, i.e. Bhupinder Grover. 14. Now, the only question which arises for consideration in this case is-whether the accident was outcome of mechanical defect in the offending vehicle? 15. Both the Courts below have discussed the evidence available on the record and came to the conclusion that the petitioner-accused was driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently at the relevant point of time. 16. I have also gone through the statements of the witnesses, namely, Narinder Singh (PW-1), Pritam Singh (PW-2), Kuldeep Singh (PW-3), LHC Manohar Lal (PW-4), Bhagwan Dass (PW-5), Constable Shakti Kumar (PW-6), Budhi Chand (PW-7), Balak Ram (DW-1) and Vigyan Dass (DW-2). Narinder Singh (PW-1) has deposed that the accused-petitioner was rashly and negligently driving the offending vehicle on the date of accident. Even, the Investigating Officer (PW-7) has stated that he has conducted the investigation and came to the conclusion that the accused was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is apt to record herein that the accused has not been able to shatter the evidence of Investigating Officer, PW-7 or Shakti Kumar (PW-6) while undergoing cross-examination. 17. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused virtually has not argued on the point of rash and negligent driving, but has argued that the accident was outcome of mechanical defect of the vehicle. 18. Having gone through the record, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubts that the accident was outcome of the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner-accused. Accordingly, no interference is warranted with the concurrent findings returned by the Courts below. 19. Having said so, the order of conviction passed by the Courts below is upheld. 20. Accordingly, no interference is warranted with the concurrent findings returned by the Courts below. 19. Having said so, the order of conviction passed by the Courts below is upheld. 20. Now, the question is-whether it is a case where the leniency can be shown while recording the sentence and whether the sentence is to run concurrently or consecutively. Both the courts below have ordered that the sentences to run concurrently. 21. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is in lis from 1.5.1996 and faced his conviction order, which was set-aside by the Sessions Judge; case was remanded; the petitioner-accused again faced conviction; upheld in appeal; now is before this Court and is waiting for the final verdict for the last two decades. 22. The maximum punishment provided under Section 279 IPC is imprisonment for six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both. The maximum punishment provided under Section 337 IPC is imprisonment for six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or with both. The maximum punishment provided under Section 338 IPC is imprisonment for two years, or with fine, which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. For the offence under Section 304-A IPC, the maximum punishment is two years, or with fine, or with both. 23. The learned Sessions Judge, reduced the sentence from two years to one year under Section 304-A IPC. 24. I deem it proper to reduce the sentence to six months under Sections 338 and 304-A IPC with fine imposed by the Courts below. In addition to fine, I deem it proper to impose the fine of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation, out of which, Rs.1,75,000/- shall be paid to the legal representatives of deceased Bhupender Grover and Rs.12,500/- to injured Parvesh Mehta and Narinder Singh, each. 25. Substantive sentence shall run concurrently and in default of payment of fine of compensation, the petitioner-accused has to undergo simple imprisonment for six months, in addition to the substantive sentence. 26. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una within one week from today. In case he fails to surrender, the trial Court shall take steps to arrest the petitioner and lodge him in jail, as per the provisions of law, applicable. 27. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.