Ashok Kumar Kathuria alias Santu vs The State of Haryana

Ashutosh Mohunta, J.—The petitioner was convicted and sentenced by both the Courts below as under:-

Convicted u/s Sentence awarded

279 I.P.C. R.I. for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-. In default, to undergo R.I. for one month.

337 I.P.C. R.I. for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-. In default, to undergo R.I. for one month.

304-A I.P.C. R.I. for two years & to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default, to undergo R.I. for 3 months.

429 I.P.C. R.I. for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-. In default, to undergo R.I. for one month.

All the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently.

The petitioner, who was 22 years of age at the relevant time, is alleged to have driven truck bearing registration No. HRC-5552 rashly and negligently, and thereby struck the truck against a camel cart on April 28, 1986 at about 4 A.M. The camel cart was carrying Nanu, his wife Smt. Prem, there son Chander, Lila and chander Bhan. Lila and Chander Bhan died at the spot, whereas the other occupants received grievous hurts. Nanu is also stated to have died after some days as a result of the grievous injuries suffered by him in the accident.

The accused was arrested and challenged vide F.I.R. No. 93 dated April 28, 1986, Police Station City, Palwal, under Sections 279, 337, 429 and 304-A, Indian Penal Code. He was produced before the Illaqa Magistrate, who charged him under the said sections.

The prosecution examined Smt. Prem (P.W. 1), besides the other formal witnesses.

The accused when examined u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against him. He took up the plea that as the head-lights of the truck were on, the camel had got scared and brought the camel in front of the truck, resulting in the accidence. He led no evidence in defence.

The learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palwal, believed the prosecution prosecution story and convicted and sentenced the accused in the manner as indicated above, vide judgment and order dated September 14, 1989. The appeal filed by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad, vide judgment dated July 9, 1990.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the evidence brought on record.

The sole argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that except Smt. Prem, no other eye-witness has been examined by the prosecution, despite the fact that other witnesses were available at the relevant time. The counsel contends that on the basis of uncorroborated testimony of Smt. Prem, the accused could not be convicted.

I do not find merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not a case of blind accident. Moreover, the accused himself has admitted that the accident did take place but he has given his own version. According to the accused, as the head-lights of the truck were on, the camel had got scared and it brought the camel cart in front of the truck, which resulted in the accident. Moreover, the prosecution is not bound to examine all the persons said to have witnessed the occurrence. It has not been suggested that Smt. Prem had any animus against the petitioner to have falsely inculpate him in the crime. At the trial Smt. Prem has consistently stated that it was Ashok accused who was driving the truck at the relevant time. Rather it is the case of the accused himself that he had taken the injured to the hospital. Thus, I am of the opinion that the testimony advanced by Smt. Prem is trustworthy. Both the courts below have held the accused guilty of the offence. I find no infirmity in the well-reasoned judgments passed by the Courts below.

In the light of the above discussion, I uphold the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 304-A, 279, 337 and 429, Indian Penal Code.

However, there is scope for reduction in the sentence awarded to the petitioner u/s 304-A, Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was a youngman of 22 years at the time of the accident. It has come on record that he had taken in the injured to the hospital. By doing so, he has shown generosity on his part. Keeping in view this generous act of the petitioner, I reduce the sentence awarded to him u/s 304-A, Indian Penal Code, from two years to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and 6 months. The sentence awarded for other offences is, however, maintained. The substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.

Except for the modification in the quantum of sentence, as indicated above. The petition is dismissed.