Dial Singh vs State of Punjab

P.K. Jain, J.—This Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment dated 9.12.1986 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, whereby the conviction and sentence of the petitioner for offences under sections 304A, 427 and 429 I.P.C., recorded by Judicial Magistrate, Dasuya by Judgment dated 23.8.1986, have been confirmed. The petitioner has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ or in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. Under Section 304A, I.P.C.; to undergo six months'' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/ or in default to further undergo one month''s rigorous imprisonment for an offence under Section 427 I.P.C. and to undergo six months'' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/ or in default to further undergo one month''s rigorous imprisonment for an offence under section 429 I.P.C. All the sentences of imprisonment have been ordered to run concurrently.

The facts necessary for the disposal of this revision are that on 7.9.1984, Ishar Ram (PW8) and Roshan Lal (deceased) were carrying logs of wood on their respective carts from village Khunkhun towards Mukerian. Kartar Singh (PW 9) was following them on the Dasuya and Pathankot road. Cart of Ishar Ram was ahead of the cart of Roshan Lal. When at about 8/815 P.M., they reached the bridge of choe Kalewal on the G.T. Road Pathankot, bus bearing No. PBN7442 of Punjab Roadways, which was going to Pathankot, being driven by the petitioner rashly and negligently, came from behind and struck against the cart of Roshan Lal on its right side and then against the cart of Ishar Ram. As a result thereof, Roshan Lal fell on the road and logs of wood from the cart also fell on him. Cart of Ishar Ram alongwith buffalo bull yoked on the left side of the cart were entangled in the railings of the bridge. Ishar Ram jumped from his cart and had a narrow escape. However, his buffalo bull died on the spot. Buffalo bulls yoked to the cart of Roshan Lal received injuries. The passengers of the bus and the petitioner pulled out Roshan Lal from under the heap of the logs of wood. The petitioner arranged the transport and removed Roshan Lal to Civil Hospital, Dasuya but on the way Roshan Lal succumbed to his injuries.

On receipt of information Ex.PA sent by Doctor Raj Bala (PW1), Assistant Sub Inspector Sampuran Singh (PW11) went to the Civil Hospital Dasuya and recorded statement Ex.PW.8/A made by Ishar Ram. He made his endorsement Ex.PW.11/A on the basis of which formal F.I.R. Ex.PW.11/B was recorded. Inquest report Ex.PW.11/C in respect of the dead body of Roshan Lal was prepared. Doctor Raj Bala (PW1) conducted post mortem report on the said dead body and prepared report Ex. PB. A.S.I. Sampuran Singh alongwith Ishar Ram visited the place of the occurrence which was got photographed. Post mortem of the deceased buffalo bull was conducted by Doctor Kewal Krishan (PW.2) vide his report Ex.PC. The injured buffalo bull was also medically examined and the report Ex.PD was prepared. Rough site plan Ex.PW.11/D of the place of the occurrence was prepared. Broken pieces of glass, one plastic shoe, Driving Licence of the petitioner two carts of Roshan Lal and Ishar Ram, the bus in question, the clothes found on the dead body of Roshan Lal, negative and positive copies of the photographs were taken into possession by preparing recovery memos. The bus was got mechanically tested from Inder Mohan (PW10), vide his report Ex.PW.10/A on 10.9.1984. Duty Roster Ex.PW.6/A and duplicate copy of way bill Ex.P.1 in respect of the said bus and duty of the petitioner, were taken into possession. After completing the investigation a charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner to the court.

A charge under sections 304A, 427 and 429 I.P.C. was framed against the petitioner to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code), the petitioner denied all the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded his innocence and false implication. According to his plea, the accident took place due to the fault of the deceased and Ishar Ram and it was he who had bona fide removed Roshan Lal to the hospital. Statement of Ishar Ram Ex.DA, was tendered in defence evidence.

On an appraisal of the evidence produced on the record, the trial Magistrate convicted and sentenced the petitioner as stated above. His appeal against conviction and sentence did not find favour with the Additional Sessions Judge and the same was rejected vide impugned judgment. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court under Section 401 of the code.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned judgment as well as record of the trial Court.

Shri T.P.S. Mann, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner made a vain attempt to assail the conviction of the petitioner on the grounds that the petitioner was not driving the vehicle rashly or negligently, that there was darkness on the spot and it was due to the fault of Roshan Lal and Ishar Ram that the accident took place. It has been further pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was the petitioner who had removed the deceased to the hospital which proves his innocence.

On the other hand Shri Rajesh Girdhar, learned Assistant Advocate General appearing for the State of Punjab has argued that it was the petitioner who had come from behind the carts while driving the aforesaid bus in a rash and negligent manner and struck against the two carts in the manner explained by the eye witnesses including the injured Ishar Ram. It has been further pointed out by the learned Assistant Advocate General that it was about 8 or 815 P.M. in the month of September and the petitioner was coming from behind the carts naturally with the lights of his bus on and the question of any darkness could not arise. It has also been stated that there is concurrent finding of facts by the two courts below and there is no compelling reason to interfere therewith in revision by this court.

I have given my careful thought to the respective arguments advanced at the Bar. It is wellsettled that the High Court will not interfere in the revision unless it is satisfied that it is necessary to do so to prevent an otherwise irreparable injustice. The mere fact that the High Court sitting as a Court of appeal might have come to a different conclusion on facts from what the Magistrate arrived at is also not a sufficient ground for interference in revision. When there is a concurrent finding of facts recorded by the two Courts below, the High Court, as a rule, will not go into the evidence save in exceptional cases or where the judgment of the facts is manifestly wrong and grossly and palpably unjust. In Duli Chand v. Delhi Administration, 1975 Cri.L.J. 1732, their lordships of the Supreme Court of India held that the jurisdiction of the High Court in a criminal revision application is severely restricted and it cannot embark upon the reappreciation of evidence. That was also a case for an offence under Section 304A, Indian Penal Code, and there was a concurrent finding of facts recorded by the two Courts below that the appellant therein was guilty of negligence in driving the bus and the death of the deceased was caused due to his said negligence.

A close scrutiny of the judgments rendered by the Courts below reveals that the finding of guilty recorded against the petitioner is based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on the record. The concurrent findings of facts against the petitioner are based on cogent and convincing reason with which I am in full agreement. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to bring to my notice any manifest illegality or grave and serious miscarriage of justice which might have been occasioned to the petitioner and requires interference with the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the courts below. Even otherwise I have perused the oral as well as documentary evidence available on the record of the trial court and am fully satisfied that the petitioner has been rightly convicted for the offences as stated above.

Then the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the occurrence took place in the year 1984 when the petitioner was 50 years of age; that the petitioner has already undergone mental agony of criminal trial for a period of 12 years, that the petitioner has already retired from service and as such a lenient view may be taken on the quantum of sentence.

On the other hand learned Assistant Advocate General has argued that the petitioner was guilty of rash and negligent driving whereby he has taken the life of a person and has also killed one buffalo bull and injured another buffalo bull. It has been further argued that consideration of undue sympathy in such type of cases will lead to miscarriage of justice. It is thus argued that the sentence of imprisonment and fine imposed upon the petitioner is quite reasonable and should not be interfered.

I have given my careful thought to the question of sentence imposed upon the petitioner.

It cannot be disputed that sentencing an accused person is a sensitive exercise of discretion and not a routine or mechanical prescription acting on a hunch. The question of sentence would always differ from case to case even for the same offence. It is not disputed that the prosecution against the petitioner commenced in the year 1984 and it has been dragged on for one reason or the other till today. Keeping a person in suspended animation for 12 years without any reason cannot be with the spirit of the procedure established by law. Fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution of India creates a right in the accused to be tried speedily. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 21 of the Constitution and the interpretation thereof qua the right of an accused to a speedy trial, judicial compassion can play a role and a convict can be compensated for the mental agony which he undergoes on account of protracted trial which is not the result of his fault.

As stated above, the prosecution in this case was launched against the petitioner in the year 1984. A period of more than 12 years has elapsed and the petitioner has suffered mental harassment for such a long period for which he is to be compensated by judicial compassion. The petitioner has already retired from services and is not a previous convict. Keeping in view the various facts and circumstances discussed above and in all fairness, the ends of justice would be served if the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone, may be a short one.

For the foregoing reasons this revision succeeds in part. The conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 304A, 427 and 429 of the Indian Penal Code is affirmed. The sentence of imprisonment for the said offences awarded to the petitioner is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. However, the sentence of the fine along with its default clause is maintained.