Bakshish Singh vs State of Punjab

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.—The present revision petition has been preferred by Bakshish Singh son of Sardar Singh, resident of Village Nut, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur. He was named as an accused in case FIR No. 267 dated 11.11.1996 registered at Police Station Sadar Jalandhar under Sections 279, 304A IPC.

The Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar vide his judgment dated 30.1.2001 found the petitioner guilty of offence under Sections 279, 304A IPC and sentenced him as under:

(a) u/s 279 IPC for 6 months R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-and in default of payment of fine further undergo R.I. for one month.

(b) u/s 304A IPC R.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine 3 months further mprisonment.

Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner had filed an appeal. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and maintained the conviction and sentence.

The present petitioner was the driver of Bus No. PB-12-A-8408. Case of the prosecution is that the accused-petitioner on 11.11.1996 at 9.30 A.M. due to his rash and negligent driving had caused the death of Rajinder Kumar and Ravi Pal in the revenue area of Village Choka. The FIR in the present case was registered on the basis of statement made by Tarsem Lal PW2 to ASI Sanjeep Goel. Tarsem Lal had stated that he was resident of Jaitowali. On that day his son Rajinder Kumar and Ravi Pal son of Gian Chand were going to Rama Mandi on bicycle in connection with personal work. He along with Sucha Ram Panch were following them on another bicycle. At that time, a bus belonging to Punjab Roadways, Nangal Depot came at a very high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, without blowing any horn and hit the bicycle of his son. Rajinder Kumar and Ravi Pal fell down on the road and right front wheel of the bus crossed over them and they died at the spot. Tarsem Lal complainant PW2 and Sucha Ram Panch PW3 were the eye witnesses of the occurrence.

At the time of accident, driver of the bus disclosed his name as Bakshish Singh son of Sardar Singh resident of District Gurdaspur (petitioner). Statement Ex.PA was sent to the police station, on the basis of which formal FIR was registered.

Dr. Chanjiv Singh PW1 conducted autopsy on the dead bodies of Rajinder Kumar and Ravi Pal on 12.11.1996.

Tarsem Lal appeared as PW2 and reiterated as to what was stated in the ruqa Ex.PA.

Sucha Ram PW3 corroborated the testimony of Tarsem Lal PW2 and further stated that on the same day, the bus was taken into possession by the police vide memo Ex.PW3/A and cycle was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW3/B.

PW4 Krishan Kumar had conducted mechanical test of the bus and submitted his test report Ex.PW4/A.

ASI Mohinder Singh PW5 being a photographer had photographed the spot and handed over to the police the photographs along with negatives as Exs.P1 to P4.

PW6 Pal Singh, Dealing Clerk from the office of District Transport Office, Jalandhar stated that the bus was registered in the name of General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Nangal.

ASI Santokh Singh PW7 partly investigated the case.

Thereafter, the statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. He denied all incriminating evidence put to him and pleaded false implication. In his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C., the version given by the accused-petitioner, if translated into English reads as under:

False case has been registered against me. No accident had taken place with my bus. The boys on the cycle were coming from Jandu Singhan to Rama Mandi in a careless manner while way-warding each other. Bus was driven by me at a normal speed towards Hoshiarpur. Due to mischief committed by the boys, handle of the cycle was entangled with the handle of the other boys'' cycle and the cycle touched the bumper of the bus on the right side and the boys fell down on the road and were injured. I had stopped the bus at a distance of five steps. The boys due to their own mistake and for violating the traffic rules had died, as the nature willed so. I am trained and perfect driver. Therefore, there was no mistake on my part.

Krishan Parkash DW1 supported the version of the bus driver. Chanchal Singh, Conductor of the bus was also examined as DW2.

In the present case identity of the driver is not in dispute. The Court has to only determine as to who was at fault and responsible for the accident. The version divulged by Tarsem Lal PW2 and Sucha Ram PW3 is contrary to the defence version and statement made by the accused and two defence witnesses. Two Courts below have placed implicit reliance upon the testimonies of Tarsem Lal PW2 and Sucha Ram PW3.

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the FIR, as the person who recorded the statement of the complainant, namely, Sanjeev Goel ASI had not been examined. Therefore, the first version given in the FIR is to be discarded.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced and find no merit in the same. Non-examination of ASI Sandeep Goel is not fatal to the prosecution. Tarsem Lal PW2 and Sucha Ram PW3 were subjected to searching lengthy cross-examination. Defence failed to cause any dent in their testimonies. Hence, this Court has no reason to disturb the findings given by both the Courts below, as this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction shall refrain to re-appreciate the evidence.

At this stage, counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the present case, the occurrence had taken place in November, 1996. A long period of about 14 years is going to elapse. Petitioner has suffered mental pain and agony of the protracted trial. At the time of occurrence, petitioner was aged 52 years. At present, he is more than 65 years old. Hence, this may be considered as a mitigating circumstance and sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. It is submitted that the petitioner was taken into custody on 13.11.2002 and was ordered to be released on bail by this Court on 25.2.2003. Thus, he has undergone about 3� months of sentence.

This Court cannot become oblivious of the fact that in the present case two young persons had died. Therefore, taking into consideration the mitigating circumstance, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice will be fully met in case the sentence of two years is reduced to nine months rigorous imprisonment u/s 304A IPC. Hence, the sentence is reduced from two years to nine months rigorous imprisonment u/s 304A IPC.

With the aforesaid observations, the present revision petition is disposed of.