Balbir Singh vs State of Punjab

M.L. Singhal, J.

This is criminal revision filed by Balbir Singh against the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar dated 1.12.1998 whereby he maintained the conviction and sentence of RI for 2 years and fine of Rs. 2,000/ under Section 304A IPC and RI for 6 months and fine of Rs. 200/ under Section 337 IPC passed on him by Judicial Magistrate First Class. Amritsar vide order dated 8.2.1997 in case FIR No. 167 of 1989 under Sections 304A/338/337/427 IPC of PS `C'' Division, Amritsar.

The prosecution case in brief is that on 2.10.1989 Satpal Singh son of Gurdit Singh resident of Chowk Prag Dass, Amritsar reported to SI Paul Singh of PS `C'' Division Amritsar that he along with his wife Smt. Charanjit Kaur and sisterinlaw Paramjit Kaur was going to his house along the road after meeting his relations from Chatiwind Nahar, Amritsar that his wife was run over by bus PJG 4307 of Punjab Roadways, Patti Depot. His sisterinlaw Paramjit Kaur and Jitender Kaur Helper of the pickup van got injured. Paramjit Kaur had already been sent for treatment to the hospital. Jitender Kumar was sent to the hospital for treatment with constable Sushil Kumar. In that statement, Satpal Singh got recorded that the bus was coming for their behind at a very fast speed without blowing any horn and it first dashed against the pickup van which was standing on the kucha berm of the road. Driver of the bus dashed the bus against the pick up van when he was not observing due care and caution which was expected of him. On statement Ex. PW9/A, case FIR No. 167 was registered at PS `C'' Division, Amritsar under Sections 304A/337/338/427 IPC. During investigation it transpired that Balbir Singh accused was the author of this accident. Place of accident was photographed by Moti Lal of Shakti Photo Studio, Amritsar. Pick up van and bus were taken into possession. They were got mechanically tested from Shri Surinder Singh, Assistant Fitter, Punjab Roadways, Patti depot. He did not find any mechanical defect in the bus. After investigation, accused was challaned. Accused was charged under Sections 304A/337/338 IPC by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amritsar vide order dated 3.12.96. He pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.

At the conclusion of the trial, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Amristar found the charge under Section 304A/337 IPC proved against the accused. He accordingly convicted him thereunder and sentenced him as indicated above vide order dated 8.2.97. Not satisfied with his conviction and sentence, he went in appeal to the Court of Sessions. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar dismissed his appeal vide order dated 1.12.98. Aggrieved from this order dated 1.12.98 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, Balbir Singh has come to this Court through this criminal revision.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecution case has failed to draw any sustenance from the statements of PW4, PW5, PW6 and PW9 who have given an eye witness account. He has submitted that none of them has stated that he or she saw Balbir Singh driving the bus when the mishap took place. Jitender Kumar PW4 has stated that he had not known the driver of the bus nor could he identify him. He has stated that on 2.10.89 he was working as Helper on pick up van No. PCO 1786. It was about 12.45 PM that he was standing on the shop on Tarn Taran Road. In the meantime, bus belonging to Punjab Roadways, Patti Depot came at a very fast speed. It was going towards Amritsar side. First the bus struck against the pick up van. As a result, he got minor injuries. Articles lying in the pick up van also suffered damage. After having struck the pick up van, the bus struck two women ahead. Out of them, one died at the spot whose name came to be known later as Charanjit Kaur and other woman got seriously injured. Paramjit Kaur PW5 is the real sister of the deceased. She stated that the driver''s name came to be known to them afterwards. She has laid the entire blame on the driver of the bus so far as this mishap is concerned. She expressed ignorance as to whether the accused was driving the bus or somebody else was driving the bus. If we carefully go through her statement, she has laid the blame for this mishap on the driver of the bus. She has stated that the right side of the bus struck against them, as a result they fell. It was bus No. PJG 4307 belonging to Punjab Roadways, Patti Depot which came from behind. Bus ran over the head of her sister Charanjit Kaur. Gurbachan Singh PW6 stated that he did not witness the accident. He simply identified the dead body. Satpal Singh PW9 who is the husband of Smt. Charanjit Kaur deceased stated that on 2.10.89 he along with his wife Charanjit Kaur and sisterinlaw Paramjit Kaur was going to his house along the road. When at about 12.45 PM they reached near Onkar Cold storage at Tarn Taran Road, bus No. PJG 4307 came from their behind. This bus belonged to Punjab Roadways, Patti depot. Later on, he came to know that Balbir Singh was driver on this bus. Bus was being driven at 3035 KMPH. It was not blowing any horn. It struck against the pick up van. Thereafter, it struck against his wife and sisterinlaw Paramjit Kaur. Driver side tyre of the bus ran over Charanjit Kaur who died at the spot. Helper of this pick up van also sustained injuries. In his cross examination, he stated that he did not see the accused driving the bus. In the next breath, he stated that at the spot, but afterwards, he came to know that it was Balbir Singh who was driving that bus. This bus belonged to Punjab Roadways, Patti Depot. It was stated by Baldev Singh, Establishment Clerk that Balbir Singh was driver in Punjab Roadways Patti Depot. He produced appointment letter showing the appointment of Balbir Singh as driver in Punjab Roadways, Patti Depot. Mohinder Singh, Station Supervisor PW8 stated that on 2.10.89 Balbir Singh was put on duty on bus No. PJG 4307. This bus was to start from Patti at 12 noon. Accident took place at about 12.45 PM. Statement of Mohinder Singh rules out altogether the possibility of the implication of the accused on mistaken identity. If Balbir Singh was feeling that he was being implicated on mistake identity, he could make an application to the Court that he be sent to jail and be put up at test identification parade and the PWs be called upon to identify him at the test identification parade. If Balbir Singh felt that the statement of Mohinder Singh PW8 was inconclusive and not showing affirmatively that he was driver put on this bus on duty on 2.10.89 at the commencement of its journey from Patti, he could have examined somebody else in his defence to state that it was not Balbir Singh but somebody else who had been put on this bus on duty at Patti enroute Amritsar.

When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., then accused made a candid admission that on 2.10.89 at about 1 PM, he was driver on this bus. He was driving this bus from Patti to Amritsar. When this bus reached near old octroi post at Chatiwind Canal, road was found to be out of order. There were many breachers on the road. Bus was at a very slow speed. A rickshaw was going ahead of him carrying two women. Rickshaw became imbalanced and got tumbled due to breaches in the road. Those women fell. He applied brakes to the bus but brakes could not be applied. Women were run over under the bus. In the face of what the accused has stated in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., there remains no manner of doubt that he was driving the bus at the relevant time. Paramjit Kaur etc. PWs have stated that the accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. Driver has been found to have been driving the bus rashly and negligently by the two Courts below. Evidence was appreciated by the Magistrate. It was appreciated over again by the Additional Sessions Judge. Evidence cannot be appreciated by this Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

In my opinion, the learned Magistrate justifiably found the charge proved against the accused on appreciation of evidence and convicted him. Similarly, the learned Additional Sessions Judge justifiably agreed with him on appreciation of evidence over again and maintained conviction. Faced with position, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has put in 25 years of service and he is nearing retirement and he be released on probation of good conduct as if he is not released on probation of good conduct, he would lose his job and his family would be exposed to starvation. It is not a case where the benefit of the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act could be extended to the accused. He ought to have known that he was driving the bus on a public highway. Public highway was not his exclusive ownership. It was not to be used by him alone. It was to be used by others also. He was supposed to act in a manner while using public highway that user by him did not impinge upon its user by others. If he had been careful and circumspect while driving the bus on a public highway, loss of human life would have been averted. In a criminal case, Court has to strike a balance between the accused and the society when it proceeds to determine how much sentence should be imposed upon him. It was held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Gurdip Singh alias Deep v. The State, JT 1997(7) SC 191 decided on 17.9.1999 that punishment to an accused in criminal jurisprudence is not merely to punish the wrongdoer but also to strike warning to those who are in the same sphere of crime or to those intending to join in such crime. This punishment is also to reform such wrongdoers not to commit such offence in future. In Ram Narain v. State, 1973) SCC (Crl.) 86, the Hon''ble Supreme Court observed that a sentence generally poses a complex problem. It requires a working compromise between the competing view based on reformative, deterrent and retributive theories of punishment. The broad object of punishment in progressive civilized society is to impress on the guilty party that commission of a crime does not pay and that it is both against the individual interest and the larger interest of the society to which he belongs.

Court should be careful not to award sentence which on account of inadequacy would fail to make a deterring effect on the criminal. "In judging the circumstances of its commission, the age and character of offender, injury to the individual or to the society, effect of punishment on the society as a whole, eye on the correction and reformation of the offender, are factors which would be ordinarily taken into consideration by the Court," was observed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Chakraborty v. State, AIR 1976 SC 392.

In Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 84 it was held that when a life has been lost and the circumstances of driving are harsh, no compassion can be shown.

It is thus not a case where accused could be allowed the benefit of the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. Keeping, however, in view that he has put in 25 years of service and he is in the fag a end of his career, I think some leniency should be shown to him towards sentence. Sentence imposed upon him is reduced to RI for one year and fine is enhanced to Rs. 4,000/ under Section 304A IPC. Sentence is reduced to RI for 3 months but fine is enhanced to Rs. 1,000/ under Section 337 IPC. In default of payment of fine of Rs. 4,000/ he will undergo further RI for 2 months and in default of payment of fine of Rs. 1,000/ he will undergo further RI for one month. Entire amount of fine, if recovered shall be paid to the husband of the deceased Smt. Charanjit Kaur.

Subject to his reduction/modification in sentence, this revision fails and is dismissed.

Revision dismissed.