Balwinder Singh vs State of Punjab

A.S. Nehra, J.

Petitioner was convicted by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar under Sections 304A and 337 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for three months under Section 304A IPC. He was also sentenced to undergo RI for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/ and in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for one month under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently and fine of Rs. 1000/, if realised, was ordered to be paid as compensation to the next kin of Rajinder, deceased. The appeal filed by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, on March 6, 1987.

Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that Rajinder (deceased), Baldev Raj and Harpal Singh were working as khalasis in the Indian Oil Corporation at Suchi Pind, Jalandhar. On October 31, 1983, after performing their duties, they were returning to their village, Lamba Pind. On foot and at about 10.30 P.M. when they reached near the turning of Lamba Pind Road, walking on the left side of the road, a truck bearing registration No. PBP 5680 being driven by the petitioner rashly and negligently came from behind and dashed against them without blowing the horn; as a result whereof they were thrown on the ground and they sustained injuries. After hitting them, the truck turned turtle on the left side of the road. Thereafter, the petitioner abandoned the truck and fled away from the place of occurrence. After a short while, Shri J.L. Seth, Manager of the Indian Oil Corporation, came to the spot and carried the injured to Civil Hospital, Jalandhar in his car. However, Rajinder succumbed to the injuries while others were medically examined.

On receipt of ruqa, Ex. PA, from Civil Hospital, Jalandhar, Head Constable Buta Ram (PW 2) went to the hospital and after obtaining opinion of the concerned Medical Officer regarding fitness of injured Harpal Singh to make a statement, he recorded statement, Ex. PD, of Harpal Singh; on the basis whereof formal FIR, Ex. PD/3, was registered at Police Station Division No. 3, Jalandhar. Autopsy on the dead body of Rajinder was conducted by Dr. Parminder Singh (PW 4). Thereafter, Buta Ram, Head Constable visited the spot and found truck No. PBP5680 lying abandoned there. He seized the truck and on search found relevant documents i.e. registration certificate, route permit, driving licence of the petitioner, insurance certificate of the truck and log book from inside the truck and took the same into possession vide recovery memo, Ex. PB. He also got the scene of occurrence photographed and prepared rough site plan, Ex. PF, of place of occurrence with correct marginal notes. The petitioner was arrested on November 2, 1983 and challaned in due course.

To prove its case, the prosecution examined Baldev Raj (PW 1), Head Constable Buta Ram (PW 2), Harpal Singh (PW 3), Dr. Parminder Singh (PW 4), Manjit Singh (PW 5) and Dr. S.K. Thaper (PW 6).

When examined under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner denied the allegations appearing in evidence against him and pleaded his false implication. He, however, did not adduce any evidence in his defence.

Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the conviction of the petitioner on the ground that identification of petitioner as driver of the truck involved in the accident was not established and the prosecution evidence did not prove that the offending truck was being driven rashly and negligently by the petitioner. It was also argued that there was delay in lodging the First Information Report which rendered the entire case of the prosecution doubtful.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Assistant Advocate General (Punjab) at length and have gone through the evidence carefully.

The accident took place on October 31, 1983 at about 10.30 P.M. Three victims were taken to Civil Hospital, Jalandhar. The medicolegal examination of Harpal Singh and Baldev Raj, injured witnesses, was conducted between 12.15 A.M. and 12.30 A.M. on November 1, 1983. Ruqa, Ex.PA, regarding the arrival of the injured and the dead body of Rajinder in the hospital was sent to the police at about 12.05 A.M. On November 1, 1983 whereafter the Investigating Officer went to Civil Hospital, Jalandhar, and after obtaining the opinion of the doctor, recorded the statement, Ex. PD, of Harpal Singh at about 6 A.M. wherein the registration number of the truck is also mentioned. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any delay in lodging the FIR or that statement, Ex. PD forming basis of FIR was made by Harpal Singh after due deliberation and consultations.

Buta Ram, Head Constable (PW 2) inspected the place of occurrence and found truck bearing registration No. PBP5680 lying abandoned. No doubt, the petitioner had run away from the spot after the occurrence but recovery of Route Permit, Ex. P1, Log Book, Ex. P2, Insurance certificate, Ex. P3, Registration certificate of the truck and the driving licence of the petitioner valid upto 6.7.1984, from inside the offending truck leaves no room for doubt that it was the petitioner who was driving the truck at relevant time. Moreover, in the log book, Ex. P2, it is clearly mentioned that the truck in question had left Jind on 31.10.1983 with Balwinder Singh, petitioner, as its driver. This document also led to the identification of the petitioner and he was arrested on November 2, 1983. Another relevant piece of evidence is in the statement of Manjit Singh, RecordKeeper of Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar (PW 5). As per his evidence and report, Ex. PW 5/A, Rahdari receipt was got by one Kabal Singh on 31.10.1983 from Octroi Post No. 16 in respect of Truck No. PBP5680 for Octroi Post No. 4 but the said truck did not pass through Octroi Post No. 4. Ex. PW5/D is the copy of an application submitted to the Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar, by the owner of the said truck praying for cancellation of Rahdari on the ground that the Truck No. PBP5680 had met with an accident on the bypass and could not proceed further. There is, thus, impregnable evidence to prove that the truck No. PBP5680 being driven to the petitioner had met with an accident.

Baldev Raj (PW 1) and Harpal Singh (PW 3) are the stamped witnesses. They sustained injuries as a result of the accident. It is in the statement of both these witnesses that the offending truck being driven rashly and negligently came from behind and knocked them down after dashing against them. It is further in their evidence that they and Rajinder (deceased) were coming to Lamba Pind walking on the left side of the road, after they were free from their duty in the Indian Oil Corporation, where they were working as Khalasis. These witnesses further deposed that after striking against them, the truck had turned turtle on the left side of the road. Baldev Raj (PW 1) also stated that after dashing against them, the truck had struck against a trolley and turned turtle. However, in his statement recorded by the police, the witness did not make any mentioned of the trolley. This simple improvement does not make the presence of the witness doubtful. The fact remains that after the accident, the truck turned turtle and the petitioner had fled away. Both the learned Lower Courts have rightly acted upon the statement of the witnesses to hold that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner be released on probation. In support of his argument, he relied upon A.P. Raju v. State of Orissa, 1995 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 675. Mr. Parminder Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, on the other hand, contended that this was not a fit case in which the petitioner should be granted probation. In support of his argument, he placed reliance on Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1980 Supreme Court 84.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I hold that this is not a fit case in which the petitioner is entitled to be released on probation. In the present case, one person had died on the spot while other two persons were injured seriously and the truck had turned turtle. Consequently, A.P. Raju v. State of Orissa (Supra) is not applicable to the facts of the prent case. In Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) a truck driver was convicted under Section 304A of Indian Penal Code and was sentenced R.I. for two years. In that case, the conviction and sentence of two years was upheld by the Apex court.

In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.