Gurdial Singh vs State of Punjab

R.P. Nagrath, J.—The petitioner has challenged the concurrent findings of conviction recorded against him by the Courts below for offence u/s 279 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code (IPC). The petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and six months u/s 304-A IPC. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days u/s 279 IPC. Both the sentences were to run concurrently. The facts of the case, as emerge during the trial, are that on 09.09.2005, Prem Lal (deceased) and his wife Anita had gone to village Mayianpur to meet the family of Vidyawanti the Bua (father''s sister) of Prem Lal. Surinder Kumar, brother of Anita had also come there. They were returning from village Mayianpur in the evening on motorcycle No. PB-02-AE-4735. Prem Kumar was driving the motorcycle and Anita was the pillion rider. They were followed by Krishan Lal husband of Vidyawanti riding on a separate motorcycle and Surinder Kumar was the pillion rider. When they reached near the brick kiln in the area of village Kandila that their motorcycle stopped. Prem Lal parked the motorcycle on the kachha portion and started checking his vehicle. Soon thereafter, Surinder Kumar and Krishan Lal also reached there and stopped their vehicle and they started talking with each other. In the meanwhile, a Tanker No. PB-06-A-9763 was seen coming from Batala side. The driver of the tanker, whose name was later on learnt as Gurdial Singh-petitioner, was driving the tanker at a fast speed and did not blow horn. The driver of the tanker brought his vehicle on the wrong side of the road and hit Prem Lal who was present near his motorcycle. The motorcycle was dragged to a distance towards the right side of the road on the kachha path and after stopping the vehicle the petitioner fled from there. Prem Lal died at the spot as a result of injuries on his person. Anita and Surinder Kumar were proceeding to police station to lodge the report that in the way police party headed by ASI Karnail Singh met them. The complainant recorded her statement, Ex. PA on the basis of which FIR Ex. PA/3 was registered.

The motorcycle of the deceased alongwith registration certificate and the offending tanker were taken into possession from the spot vide memos Ex. PC and Ex. PD, respectively. Postmortem examination on the dead body of Prem Lal was conducted in the Civil Hospital. The petitioner was produced before the police on 11.09.2005 by Daljit Singh son of Jagir Singh. The registration certificate of the vehicle was also produced for which memo Ex. PW-3/D was prepared.

The prosecution examined five witnesses in support of its case.

The petitioner denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against him and pleaded false implication.

The bone contention of petitioner was that his identity has not been established beyond suspicion. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to cross-examination of complainant (PW-1) who stated that she had not seen the driver at the spot. In cross-examination, PW-1 stated that she came to know about the driver from her relative on the next day. However, in the statement Ex. PA made by the complainant before the police and stated to have been recorded on the date of occurrence itself at about 7.30 p.m., the name of petitioner to be the driver of offending vehicle was mentioned.

PW-2 Krishan Lal, the other eye-witness testified that petitioner was the driver of offending vehicle which was being driven at a fast speed and in a rash and negligent manner. There is nothing in the cross-examination of both these witnesses for suggesting any ulterior motive for the witnesses to falsely implicate the petitioner. Nothing appeared in the cross-examination of PW-2 to bring suspicion in the identity of petitioner as driver of the offending vehicle. The witness in cross-examination stated that the petitioner fled from the spot but he came to know the name of petitioner there and then. There are certain discrepancies appearing in cross-examination of PW-1 and PW-2 about the manner in which police was informed and that in statement made before police the factum of offending vehicle being Milk Tanker was not mentioned, but these are quite insignificant factors. It is, however, stated by PW-1 that the police reached the spot instantly within five minutes.

The petitioner was arrested on 11.09.2005 just two days after the occurrence. PW-3 ASI Jaspal Singh was then posted as HC and was associated in the investigation with ASI Kuldeep Singh. PW-3 stated that the petitioner was produced in the instant FIR on 11.09.2005 by Daljit Singh and arrest memo Ex. PW-3/A was prepared. The registration certificate of the offending vehicle was also produced alongwith the petitioner which fact finds mention in the memo Ex. PW-3/B.

The other important factor is that the offending vehicle was recovered at the spot. I am of the considered view that if the accident takes place with a vehicle like bus or truck or a vehicle of similar nature, which is found at the spot itself, it is not difficult to identify the driver of offending vehicle. This principle has also been observed by this Court in Sanjeev Kumar vs. State of Punjab, CRR No. 2313 of 2013 decided on 10.10.2013. Therefore, the finding reached by the Courts below about identity of petitioner as the driver of offending vehicle is unexceptional.

The other question would be whether the petitioner was rash or negligent in driving the vehicle. The investigating officer prepared the site plan Ex. PB on 09.09.2005 itself and location of both the vehicles and the point where the witnesses saw the occurrence are on the extreme right side on the kachha track of the main road while coming from Batala side and the location of these vehicles, therefore, would establish this issue beyond suspicion.

It is testified by PW-2 that it had rained heavily on the morning of 09.09.2005 and therefore, PW-4 the investigating officer was quite correct in stating that he could not lift the blood stains because it had rained that day. Even PW-1 stated that it had rained heavily on that day.

The Courts below have reached at the findings on these important questions after proper analysis of the evidence and it would not be possible to interfere in those findings unless those are shown to be perverse or in ignorance of the material on record. Even if there is possibility of a different opinion, those findings cannot be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The revision to challenge the conviction on merits, therefore, would stand dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, vehemently contended that the petitioner has already undergone sufficient punishment and the sentence may be accordingly reduced.

It is contended that the petitioner has four children and one is a cancer patient and two others are mentally retarded. One of his child is one year old and petitioner''s wife is the only family member looking after the children. The response to this allegation was filed by the State counsel. It is admitted that the petitioner has four children. It is also admitted that eldest child is a cancer patient and two of his sons are mentally challenged and that there is no one else to look after the children except the wife of the petitioner.

As per custody certificate placed on record by the State counsel, the petitioner by now has undergone about eight months of imprisonment.

Looking into the above aspects, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced from one year six months u/s 304A IPC to the period already undergone by the petitioner. With the above modification in the sentence, the revision on merits is dismissed. The petitioner be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.

Copies of this judgment be sent to all the concerned for immediate compliance.