Gurmej Singh vs State of Punjab

H. K. Sandhu, J.

Gurmej Singh revisionpetitioner was tried for offences under Sections 279 and 304A IPC by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar. He was held guilty and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 400/ for the offence under Section 304A IPC and to further undergo R. 1. for a period of three months under Section 279 IPC vide judgment dated 1511986. Aggrieved by this judgment Gurmej Singh filed an appeal which was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, on 14101986. The present revision petition has been filed by Gurmej Singh assailing his conviction and sentence.

The prosecution case as set up at trial was that on 2111984. Avtar Singh and his brother Sarabjit Singh deceased were going to Amritsar on a bicycle which was being driven by Sarabjit Singh. Avtar Singh was sitting on the carrier of the bicycle. At about 8 00 A. M. when they reached near Samadh Baba Naudh Singh a mini bus bearing No. CHA4258 which was being driven by the petitioner in rash and negligent manner struck against the bicycle of the deceased. As a result of this impact Sarabjit Singh fell down and became unconscious. He was taken to S.G.T.B. Hospital, Amritsar where he died due to injuries On information supplied by the doctor to the Incharge police guard in the hospital, Assistant SubInspector Baldev Singh recorded the statement of Avtar Singh on the basis of which case was registered. After completion of investigation challan was presented.

The prosecution examined Gian Chand Mechanic PWI, Avtar Singh brother of the deceased PW2 and A.S.I. Baldev Singh PW3. Post mortem report of the deceased Ex. P1 was also tendered in evidence.

The contention of the petitioner in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was that he was falsely involved in the case. In fact the accident took place with a car which was going ahead of his bus. Dr. Vijay Kumar Setia was also in the bus. They brought the injured to the hospital. In defence the petitioner examined Baba Karan Singh DWI and Dr. Vijay Kumar Setia as DW2. Both these persons stated that the accident took place with a car and the petitioner was falsely involved.

I have heard the counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that besides the statement of Avtar Singh brother of deceased, there was no other evidence on record to show that in fact the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of mini bus by the petitioner. It was contended that presence of Avtar Singh at the spot was not duly established and in fact there was no independent witnesses who happened to see the accident but they were intentionally withheld as they were not to support the case of the prosecution. It was also urged that in fact Avtar Singh was not accompanying the deceased as alleged by him. Avtar Singh contended that he was employed in some factory at Amritsar and he was going to attend his job, but when crossexamined, he was unable to disclose the name of the factory or the proprietor of the factory. Reference was made to the statement of Avtar Singh wherein he deposed that Tarsem Singh and Dalbir Singh were present at the spot and they had witnessed the accident. The contention of the learned counsel be accepted. Then is no reason to discredit the statement of Avtar Singh because his presence at the spot cannot be doubted and is rather established by the evidence led in defence. The mere fact that Avtar Singh it real brother of the deceased is no ground to reject his testimony. He is rather a person who will not let off the real culprit and will involve a person falsely who happened to bring him and his brother to the hospital after the accident. DWI Baba Karam Singh admitted that two boys were involved in the accident and they were taken to the hospital. Dr. Vijay Setia DW2 also deposed to the same effect. According to him the older boy died while he got the younger one admitted in the hospital. So. it cannot be urged that Avtar Singh was not present at the spot and was introduced as a witness being a relation of the deceased. Statement of Avtar Singh was duly corroborated by the postmortem report as well as the site plan showing the place of accident. The learned Courts below rightly appreciated the evidence on record and held the petitioner guilty.

It was next urged on behalf of the petitioner that he was a young man of the age of 30 years and this was the first offence committed by him. He had faced this litigation for the last 9 years and had already undergone sufficient harassment, so he may not be sent to jail and may be given an opportunity to mend his ways. After the accident he made all efforts to save the life of the deceased by getting timely medical treatment. The Courts below had not given any special reasons for not giving him benefit of probation. I accept this contention of the learned counsel. The petitioner is a young person and his antecedents are unblemished, He is the bread earner of his family. He has undergone a long period of litigation. His conduct after the accident can also not be ignored as he took the injured and the deceased to a hospital in Amritsar. I, therefore, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner, direct that he be released on probation on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 3000/ with one surety in the like amount for a period of one year undertaking to appear and receive sentence as and when called upon during this period and that in the meantime he will keep peace and be of good behaviour. With the above modification in the sentence the revision petition is dismissed.

The petitioner to furnish bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, within a period of one month.