Amin Lal vs State of Haryana

A. S. Nehra, J.

Petitioner was convicted under Sections 304A, 279 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code; in default of payment of fine he was ordered to further undergo RI for a period of three months. He was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of two years under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo RI for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code; in default of payment of fine he was further ordered to undergo RI for three months on February 26, 1986 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak. The appeal of the petitioner was dismissed on July 17, 1986 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak.

Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on October 16, 1988 at about 8 p.m., Narain Singh and Ram Kumar were sitting outside the Baithak of Bhola when in the meantime bus No. HRJ3567 came at a rash speed in a zigzag manner from the side of Rohtak. The bus came to its wrong side of the road and struck against the cart standing there resulting into damage to the cart. Further the bus struck against the bullock cart. The driver turned the bus towards his left hand side and struck it against the camel cart which was standing on the Kacha portion of road. The driver could not control the bus and struck it against the house of Bhola Carpenter, as a result of which his house fell down. Bhola and his son, who were sitting in front of their house, came under the bus and were run over and sustained serious injuries. The bus further struck into the house of Laxmi which house had also fallen. The accused was caught at the spot by Ram Narain etc., and he disclosed him name as Amin Lal. However, he managed to escape from there Bhola and Chander were taken to Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak. Narain Singh reported the matter to the police, on the basis of which the present case was registered against the petitioner. Bhola and Chander succumbed to their injuries in the hospital.

PW 1 is Dr. Jugal Kishore, who had conducted post mortem examination on the dead bodies of Chander son of Bhola Ram, aged 45 years, resident of village Kahlawar and Bhola son of Abhan, aged eight years resident of village Kehlawar. The doctor found the following injuries on the person of Chander

An oblique lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 on the right side of head 8 cm above the upper end of right pinna, read in colour, no bony injury.

An oblique lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 1 cm on the right side of head 3 cm. below the injury No. 1 red in colour, no bony injury.

Oblique contusion 8 cm x 1 cm on the back of left elbow red in colour.

An oblique contusion 8 cm x 2 cm on the back of chest in the left infranscapular region red in colour.

It was further stated that on opening chest, there was fracture of 8th 9th and 10th rib on left side with laceration of muscles. The left lower leg was found to be ruptured. The doctor further opined that the injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and that probably 24 hours time elapsed between death and postmortem examination.

On the person of Bhola, the doctor found the following injuries :

There were multiple lacerated wounds on the right side of face and lateral end of right eye which were red in colour.

A circular 1 cm wound with lacerated margin on the back of right elbow in disruption there was laceration of muscles and fracture of right olecaranon''s head with in filtration of blood in the surrounding tissues.

An oblique lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 1 cm on the lower 1/3rd of right forearm which was skin deep red in colour.

A vertical lacerated wound 4 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm on the front of right leg 10 cm above the ankle.

An oblique abrasion 5 x 5 cm on the front of left patella covered with large brown crust.

An oblique lacerated wound 3 cm x 1 x 1 cm on the bone of left hand in the middle. It was skin deep and red in colour.

Oblique lacerated wound 1 cm x 75 cm x 5 cm on the front of left leg of its lower 1/3rd red in colour.

It was further opined that on opening there was haematoma 20 cm x 10 cm on the left side of scalp. The left parietal bone was fracture. On opening skull there was subdural haematoma, red in colour over the right parietal bone. It was further opined that the injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

PW2 is mechanic who had conducted mechanical test of the bus. His report is Ex. PE. Suggestion was given to him by saying that it was wrong that front left tyre of the bus had burst. PW3 is photographer who had taken photos of the place of accident. PW4 Ram Kumar is the alleged eye witness. His deposition is that about two months less than four years back, they (in all three) were sitting in front of the bethak of Bhola son of Hardeva; that the accused was sitting on the seat of the bus driver; that accused first struck the bus against bullock cart and then against a camel cart and then his bus entered in a house. He further stated the bus was being driven some times on one extreme end of the road and sometimes on the other extreme end of the road and that he was not even blowing horn. He stated that the accused was apprehended on the spot; that the name of the accused was later on ascertained as he and the conductor of the bus had run away from the place of accident by playing trick. He stated that in his presence bus and camel cart were taken into possession by the police. In his cross examination he denied the suggestion that front left wheel of the bus had burst. PW 5 Bhim Singh in his crossexamination stated that he was sitting in front of the house of Roop Chand which was at a distance of 4050 yards from the place of occurrence and that on hearing sound, he came; that the accident first took place with men and thereafter it struck against houses, that the bus had struck against a rehra. PW 6 is also an eyewitness, who had seen the accident. His deposition is that bus No. HRJ3567 struck against the house of Chander and Bhola on October 16, 1981 at about 8 p.m. and that wall of his house and that of Chander and Bhola fell down and that Chander and Bhola sustained injuries and thereafter they were taken to hospital. PW 7 is Raj Kumar SubInspector. His deposition is that on October 16, 1981 he was present at village Karawar along with other police officials in connection with official duty and Narain Singh got recorded statement Ex. PW 7/A which was sent to police station, on which the case was registered and formal FIR, Ex, PW 7/B was recorded by Lehna Singh.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the identity of the petitioner is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. He has further contended that the prosecution has failed to prove that the petitioner was rash and negligent.

PW Ram Kumar has stated on oath that the petitioner was driving the bus and he was negligent and was driving the bus rashly. Ram Kumar has further stated that the petitioner while driving the bus rashly first struck against the bullock cart on the wrong side of the road. Then it struck against a camel cart which was standing on the birm of the road, and thereafter struck against the house of Bhola, Chander and then against the house of Laxmi. Evidence of PW Ram Kumar is corroborated by Bhim Singh, who had reached there on hearing sound. The FIR was lodged by Narain Singh at 9.30 p.m. and the accident had taken place at 8.30 p.m. Ram Kumar has stated that after the accident, he saw the accused in the Court but his identification in the Court was not for the first time. Ram Kumar had seen the petitioner on the spot. Therefore, it stands proved that the petitioner was driving the bus rashly and negligently and it was the petitioner, who was driving the bus. Bullockcart and camel cart were totally damaged and the walls of the two houses were also broken due to the accident which took place because the petitioner was driving the bus rashly and negligently. The petitioner has not suggested to any of the witnesses nor he has stated in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that on the day of occurrence he was either on leave or he was on duty on some other bus or route and was not driving the said bus at the time of accident. The petitioner has also not placed any document in his defence on record to show that on the date of occurrence he was on leave or was on duty on some other bus or route. Therefore, it is proved from the prosecution evidence that the petitioner was driving the bus No. HRJ3567 when the accident took place.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the petitioner is a driver in Haryana Roadways and he is first offender, therefore, he is entitled to the benefit of probation. In this case two persons had died in the accident besides bullock cart, camel cart and two houses which were also damaged by the petitioner which is evident from the evidence of the prosecution. All this shows that the petitioner was so rash and negligent in driving the bus at the time of accident that it resulted into death of two persons besides the above mentioned damage to the property. In view of the facts of this case, I do not find any valid reason for releasing the petitioner on probation.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the sentence awarded to the petitioner be ordered to run concurrently. In support of his arguments he has relied upon Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1988(1) Chandigarh Law Reporter 83 and Mullapudi Venkarma v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1964 A. P. 449, wherein it has been held that :

"The High Court has wide powers under Section 435, Criminal Procedure Code, and it can always consider the propriety of a sentence recorded by the lower Courts and in case it feels that the sentence is inappropriate it can always correct it. The powers to order the sentences to run concurrently is provided under Section 367(1), Criminal Procedure Code, and the Court can always consider the feasibility of ordering the sentences to run concurrently. Thus the High Court cannot be in a worse position than the trial Court or the lower Appellate Court to exercise that power and for this purpose I think the provisions of Section 561A can always be invoked.

There is no dispute with the proposition that the High Court has got wide powers and it can always consider the propriety of a sentence recorded by the lower Courts and in case it feels that the sentence is inappropriate it can always correct it. In Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) the High Court exercised inherent powers under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, and ordered the sentences to run concurrently.

In this case the trial Court ordered that all the sentences will run consecutively. I do not find any valid reason for ordering the sentences of the petitioner to concurrently because in this case two persons had died in the accident, besides, bullock cart, camel cart and two houses were damaged by the petitioner which is evident from the evidence of the prosecution. This is not a fit case in which the inherent powers of the Court should be exercised for ordering the sentences of the petitioner to run concurrently.

As a sequence of the above discussion, there is no merit in the revision petition and the same is dismissed.