Bachna Ram vs State of Haryana

Surya Kant, J.—This revision petition has been directed against the judgment dated August 29, 1986 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra, whereby the petitioner was held guilty of committing offences under Sections 302-A, 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years along with a fine of Rs.500/- for an offence u/s 304-A IPC, RI for three months for an offence u/s 279 IPC, RI for our months for an offence u/s 337 IPC and RI for nine months u/s 338 IPC and in default of payment of fine, further RI for two months, though all the substantive sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently, as well as against the judgment dated November 9, 1987, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, whereby the petitioner''s appeal against the aforesaid judgment dated August 29, 1986 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra, was dismissed.

The petitioner was a driver of the Haryana Roadways and was driving the bus bearing registration No.HYA-2270 on the fateful day which was proceeding from Kalka to Hodel. There were about 50 passengers in the bus. A truck bearing registration No.DLL-7215 was parked on the left side of the road near the outskirts of villager Masana on the National Highway (G.T.Road), between Pipli and Shahbad with its back towards the coming bus and another truck No.HRL-3425 driven by Krishan Lal (PW-5) came from the opposite direction. When the truck bearing registration No.HRL-3425 was about to cross the stationary truck, which was parked already on the left side of the road, the bus driven by the petitioner dashed against truck No.HRL-3425, thereby causing a major accident in which six innocent passengers lost their lives, apart from various others, who received multiple injuries. This led to the registration of the case and consequential prosecution of the petitioner under Sections 279/337/338/304-A IPC, for which the petitioner having been held guilty, was sentenced as referred to above.

Aggrieved at the concurrent findings holding him guilty for causing the accident in question by rash and negligent driving and his consequential sentence that the petitioner approached this Court by way of the present petition which came up for motion hearing on November 23, 1987. As the order of even date bears out, reliance was placed on certain photographs of the scene of occurrence which were also exhibited before learned trial Court and on perusal thereof, revision petition was admitted and the petitioner was granted bail to the satisfaction of the CJM, Kurukshetra.

Shri Navneet Chhokar, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argues that the photographs on record, Ex.P-1 to P-8, especially those, to which reference was made at the time of admission of this revision petition, lead to an irresistible conclusion that the petitioner, by no stretch of imagination, can be held responsible for causing the accident by his rash and/or negligent driving. According to Shri Chhokar, the accident is exclusively attributable to the drivers of both the trucks, namely, the first, who wrongly parked the truck on the firms of the National High way and the second who, as depicted in the photographs, was not driving the truck in the right direction. According to him the placement of the bus in the photographs clearly suggests that the petitioner was driving on the extreme left side and was going straight. According to learned counsel if the amount of negligence is proportionately distributed amongst the three drivers, the element of rash or negligent driving, to be attributed to the petitioner, comes out totally negligible. Shri Chhokar then contended that the prosecution having not examined the investigating officer as a witness, has caused great prejudice to the petitioner. He also assails the judgment passed by the learned Courts below on the ground that the petitioner has been held to be a rash and negligent driver merely because the long route bus driven by him on a National Highway has been stated to be at a high speed by a few witnesses. In support of his aforementioned contention, reliance has been placed by him on two judgments of this Court in Pardeep Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2000(2) RCR (Crl.) 820 and Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2001(3) RCR (Crl.) 17.

Alternatively, Shri Chhokar contended that the occurrence had taken place on July 11, 1979. The petitioner faced protracted trial for more than seven years before he was convicted and sentenced on August 29, 1986. He availed the concession of bail during the pendency of his appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge as well as during the pendency of the present revision petition before this Court which was admitted on November 23, 1987; thus, more than 18 years have passed; the petitioner has already been removed from the government service and he is now an old person of more than 60 years of age. Shri Chhokar submits that during the period of last about more than 19 years after his conviction, the petitioner has not committed any such like offence and this is the solitary criminal negligence attributed to him while driving a vehicle. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner has already undergone actual sentence of one month and twenty eight days out of the total sentence awarded to him and having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, referred to above, it is a fit case for invoking powers u/s 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

On the other hand, Shri R.D.Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, contends that there is concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Courts below, on appreciation of the evidence, which might not warrant any interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. According to him, the investigation Officer, ASI Krishan Lal, could not be examined as he unfortunately died before he could depose before the Court and this fact has been taken notice of by the