Gurdial Singh vs State of Punjab

Mr. M.M. Punchhi, J. (oral)

The petitioner has been convicted under Section 302A, 279 and 338. Indian penal Code and variously sentenced, maximum being one year''s rigorous imprisonment.

The case of the prosecution was that the petitioner while driving Bus No. PUP 2799 of the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation in the own of Kapurthala, caused an accident while driving it rashly and negligently and thereby having run over Manjinder Singh, a young boy aged 7 years, and have injured Kamaljit Singh aged 11 years, the former''s brother. It was alleged against the petitioner that Kamaljit Singh was riding the cycle, on the pillion seat of which his younger brother Manjinder Singh was sitting. They were going on the road leading from Amritsar at Kapurthala side. When they were near the workshop of one Darshan Singh, they saw the bus coming at a fast speed and they got down from the cycle and went on the kacha track of the road, but inspite of that, the bus struck against them, the result being that Manjinder Singh was run over under the front right wheel of the bus and killed at the spot. Kamaljit Singh sustained injuries, as a result of the accident. The occurrence was seen by Darshan Singh P.W. 1, another Darshan Singh P.W. 2 and one Jaila P.W. 5.

The matter was formally reported to the police. The injured was removed to the hospital and medically attended. Dead body of Manjinder Singh was subjected to post mortem. Investigation was carried out. The petitioner was finally sent up for trial and he was convicted and sentenced. His appeal failed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the conviction of the petitioner, but he has pleaded at the outset for probation so that the petitioner, who at the relevant time was 42 years of age and a family man in government service, be given the concession of being retained in service and feed his family. The prayer has been based on the ground that facts of the case be taken into consideration towards the grant of probation and which facts reveal that it was more a case of error of judgment rather than criminal rashness or criminal negligence. In additional thereto, it has been contended that there is no previous conviction against the petitioner, his character and antecedents are not blameworthy and that his children be not made to suffer for the inevitable accident which has taken place, and a young life lost.

I have heard the learned counsel in detail on the subject. It is apparent from the prosecution evidence that the bus was going from Kapurthala towards Amritsar side, and being yet in the vicinity of Kapurthala town. It would be natural to infer that the petitionerdriver was gaining speed as it was going out of town. It has also come in the evidence of Darshan Singh (P.W. 1) and Darshan Singh (P.W. 2) that firstly a truck had come from the opposite direction to that of the bus and that the truck and the bus had crossed each other when suddenly the two children emerged and were struck against by the bus. It has also come in evidence that Kamaljit Singh on seeing the bus ahead, got down from the cycle and both the children had gone to the extreme left hand side. Such conduct of the children presupposes that they had seen the impending danger and had taken recourse to safer place. Yet the bus had appeared on the scene to cause the accident after having crossed the truck. It would be legitimate to infer that the children must have been spotted by the petitioner abruptly but when it was too late, unless he could jam the bus by application of brakes if he was driving it not speedly. The circumstances of the case thus leave an impression on my mind that it was more an error of judgment on his part. Having regard to this factor as also that the petitioner is the bread earner of his family and midway through his service carrier, Indian Oil Corporation no useful purpose would be served if he is sent to undergo the remaining part of his present sentence. Accordingly, in lieu of sentence, I release the petitioner on probation under Section 4 of `The Probation of Offenders'' Act. Let him execute a bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/ with one surely of the like amount operative for a period of two years before the trial Court, on or before 15.2.1983 binding himself to come and receive sentence when called upon to do so by the Court and in the mean time to keep peace and be of good behaviour. The petitioner shall also pay a sum of Rs. 1,500/ as compensation to the parents of the deceased and another some of Rs. 500/ to Kamaljit Singh, injured, for the injuries caused. If the sum of Rs. 500/ has been paid by the petitioner then the same be adjusted towards compensation. This petition is disposed of accordingly.