Balwan Singh vs State of Haryana

N. K. Agrawal, J.

This is a revision petition against the judgment dated August 10, 1987, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala, whereby he convicted and sentenced Balwan Singh, accused under Sections 279 and 304A Indian Penal Code, and the judgment dated December 10, 1987, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, whereby the appeal filed by the accused was only partly allowed. The appellate Court, while maintaining the conviction reduced the sentence under Section 304A, Indian Penal Code, to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ in default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months.

Accused Balwan Singh was driving truck No. DHL5390 with an empty milk tanker fitted to it on January 3, 1982. He was driving his vehicle from Delhi side to Ambala Cantt. side at about 12.30 noon. The truck driven by the accused collided with another truck No. PBS 957, which was loaded with rice bags and was coming from the Ambala Cantt. side, i.e. opposite direction. After colliding with the truck, the accused could not control his truck and hit Badlu Ram in front of Sharma Petrol Pump near Ambala. Badlu Ram fell down and was rushed to the hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries. The accident was witnessed by Gullu Ram, Buli Ram and Gulshan Lal, PWs. A report was lodged at P.S. Saddar Ambala by P.W. 1 Gullu Ram, brother of Badlu Ram (deceased). The police, after investigation, filed a chargesheet against the accused, Balwan Singh. The three eyewitnesses, namely, Gullu Ram, Buli Ram and Gulshan Lal, deposed in the trial Court that the accused was driving the truck rashly and negligently. Photographs of the site of the accident were taken by the Police Photographer, Head Constable Ranjit Singh, and were produced in the Court. The Police Mechanic, Constable Ram Dass, submitted his report stating therein that the machine of the truck was in normal condition. The investigating officer, S.I. Karam Singh, also appeared before the trial Court.

The accused explained in his statement under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, that he was driving his truck at the proper side of the road and did not cause the accident. No witness was, however, examined in defence.

The trial Court noticed that the eyewitnesses, Buli Ram and Gulshan Lal, were independent persons. Gullu Ram (P.W.1) was, however, the brother of the deceased. Since nothing was found inconsistent in the statements of the three eyewitnesses and there was nothing to show that they were giving false evidence, their evidence was relied upon.

The trial Court sentenced the accused to rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 279, Indian Penal Code, and to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ under Section 304A, Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, the accused was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. Substantive sentences were made to run concurrently. The appellate Court, as stated earlier, reduced the sentence under Section 304A, Indian Penal Code, after upholding the conviction. The sentence under Section 279, Indian Penal Code, was kept intact.

Learned counsel for the accused has argued that body of the deceased, Badlu Ram, was found, after the accident, in the middle of the road. It showed that the deceased was at fault and suffered the accident on account of being in the middle of the road. Learned counsel has also argued that the accident took place in January, 1982 and the accused may, therefore, be released on probation of good conduct as a period of sixteen years has elapsed.

Learned counsel for the accused, in support of his plea seeking the benefit of probation, has placed reliance on two decisions of this Court in Mann Parkash v. State of Haryana, 1996(1) Recent CR 437 , and Raghbir Singh v. State of Punjab, 1996(1) Recent CR 502 . Reliance is also placed on another decision of this Court in Karaj Singh v. State of Punjab, 1996(2) Recent CR 367 . The learned counsel has argued that benefit of Sections 360 and 361, Criminal Procedure Code, may be granted to the accused and he may be allowed a chance to improve his conduct. Reliance is also placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in Ved Prakash v. State of Haryana, AIR 1981 SC 643. That was a case where the accused was less than 21 years of age and he was, therefore, released on probation. On a consideration of the plea regarding the benefit of probation to the accused, it is found that each case has to be considered on its own merits and there cannot be any strict rule to grant the benefit of probation without looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of the offence and character of the accused.

Shri Parmod Goyal, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, has, on the other hand, contended that the deceased was not found, after the accident, in the middle of the road. He has argued that the site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer showing the place of occurrence, did not prove the contention of the learned counsel for the accused. The site plan clearly showed the place where the deceased was found lying, after the accident, at the left side of the road while going from Delhi side to Ambala Cantt. side. Shri Goyal has further argued that the accused drove his truck to the right side of the road and hit the truck which was coming from the opposite direction. After hitting the truck, the accused took his vehicle to the left side of the road and then hit Badlu Ram, who was standing at the extreme left side of the road. Not only that, the truck did not stop and went further and stopped after 80 yards. This situation amply proved that the accused was driving his vehicle rashly and negligently and he had no control over it.

On a consideration of the matter, it is found that the eyewitnesses have given a detailed account of the accident. There is no dispute that the two trucks were coming from the opposite directions and they had headon collision. The accused failed to keep his vehicle under control after hitting the vehicle coming from the opposite direction. There is found no substance in the plea put forward by the learned counsel for the accused that the body of the deceased, after the accident, was lying in the middle of the road.

Gullu Ram (P.W.1) stated that Badlu Ram was walking on the left side of the road after having taken his meals at Kartar Hotel. He, along with Gulshan Lal and Buli Ram, PWs, was standing near the bus stop. Buli Ram (P.W.2) also stated that the truck loaded with bags of rice was coming at a normal speed, but the accused drove his truck with empty milk tanker very fast and collided with the truck coming from the opposite direction after turning to the right side of the road.

Sub Inspector Karam Singh (P.W.9) stated that, on inspection of the spot of the accident, he found that the accident had occurred at the side of the pucca road. The road was very wide at the place of the accident. It was DelhiAmbala road and had a lot of traffic on it. There was a kutcha road also on both sides of the pucca road and then there were shops on both the sides. After the accident, the truck of the accused was found standing at the left side of the road while going to the Ambala Cantt. side.

On a perusal of the evidence, it is found that the accused was driving his vehicle rashly and negligently and that is why there were two collisions, one with a truck at the right side of the road and the other with the deceased, who was walking to his left. The conviction is, therefore, found to be correct and does not call for any interference. The charges under Sections 279 and 304A, Indian Penal Code, are found proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The plea about the benefit of probation is not found to be acceptable in view of the nature of the offence. The accused was about 35 years of age at the time of the accident. There appears no specific reason for which he may be allowed the benefit of probation. The learned counsel for the accused has not been able to show any such circumstances which would entitle the accused to get the benefit of probation.

In the result, the revision petition is found to have no substance. It is, therefore, dismissed.