Harbhajan Singh vs State of Punjab

P.K. Jain, J.

This revision is directed against the judgment dated 25.7.1995 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, whereby the conviction and sentence of the petitioner for offences under sections 304A/297/337 of the Indian Penal Code recorded by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Abohar by his judgment dated 6.1.1994, have been affirmed.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 27.6.1988 Shri Daulat Ram alongwith his wife Savitri, elder brother Nathu Ram, daughterinlaw Krishna Devi, son aged 21/4 years, nephew Jagdish, brother''s wife Naraini and two other ladies namely Namkori and Smt. Gomti Devi, was going from his village Matill to village Panjkosi in a jeep bearing No. RRG9820 being driven by Dev Dutt to attend some ceremony on the death of the motherinlaw of his niece. When the jeep reached at bus stop of village Rajpura at about 10.30 a.m. truck bearing No. RNG 4714 being driven by the petitioner Harbhajan Singh came from the side of Abohar at a very fast speed. Daulat Ram asked the driver of the jeep to keep the same on his side as the truck was coming in a rash and negligent manner. Inspite of this, the accused while driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner struck against the jeep, due to impact of which Daulat Ram complainant fell down on the ground and the truck dragged the jeep for a distance of 5/7 karams. Jagdish, Naraini, Mamkori, Gomti Devi and Dev Dutt died as a result of the accident at the spot. The other persons travelling in the jeep received injuries on their person. All these persons were removed in another jeep driven by one Sucha Singh to the Civil Hospital Matili where the injured were given treatment. The petitioner left his truck at the spot and escaped.

Manohar Singh, Sub Inspector recorded the statement of Daulat Ram which is Ex. PA on the basis of which formal F.I.R. came into existence. Rough site plan of the place of the accident was prepared. Postmortem of the dead bodies was got conducted. Injured persons were medicolegally examined in the Civil Hospital Matill. The truck and the jeep were taken into possession. Later on the petitioner was arrested. After completion of the investigation, the challan was submitted to the court.

A charge under sections 304A/279/337 I.P.C. was framed against the petitioner to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In support of its cause, the prosecution examined Dr. N.K. Bhatia (PW1), Dr. Ajay Kumar (PW2), Dr. N.S. Bhatti (PW.3), Dr. Dalip Kumar (PW4), Sucha Singh (PW5), Dr. Siri Nath Goyal (PW6), H.C. Nirmal Singh (PW7), A.S.I. Malkiat Singh (PW8), Kalu Ram (PW9), Smt. Krishna Devi (PW10), Ram Kishan Photographer (PW11), Hans Raj (PW12) and Daulat Ram (PW13). In his examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner denied allegations of the prosecution and pleaded innocence. He did not give any explanation as to how the accident took place.

On appraisal of the prosecution evidence, the trial Magistrate convicted the petitioner for the offences under Sections 304A/279/337 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/, in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under section 304A the Indian Penal Code. He was also sentenced to undergo rigourous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/ or in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence under section 279 of the Indian Penal Code. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,00/ or in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days for the offence under section 337 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences awarded to him have been ordered to run concurrently.

Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner challenged his conviction and sentence by way of appeal but the same did not find favour with the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur and was dismissed by the impugned judgment.

Record of the trial court has been requisitioned. I have heard Shri H.S. Kambhoj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri I.P.S. Sidhu, learned State counsel and have gone through the record.

On the basis of the medical evidence and the testimony of five injured witnesses, both the courts below have given a concurrent finding that the accident in question took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck by the petitioner, as a result of which five persons lost their lives and the other five were injured. Both the courts have also concluded that minor discrepancies in the statements of the eye witnesses would not affect the core of the prosecution case. It has also been taken into consideration by both the courts below that having heard the prosecution evidence against him, the petitioner did not give any explanation as to how the accident took place, although the prosecution has discharged its burden beyond shadow of doubt.

Faced with the above situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner confined himself to the question of sentence imposed upon the petitioner. It has been argued by the learned counsel that the petitioner is a young man without any previous conviction or criminal history and is the only bread earner of his family. It has been urged that a long term of sentence is not conducive and corrective in nature.

It is correct that in the accident five persons have lost their life and other five persons have injured. However, the magnitude of the offence is contained in the rash and negligent driving of the truck. The rationale of court sentence is social indefence coupled with personal correction. In our present criminal penalogy stress is being laid on the rehabilitation measures rather than criminalising by a long term of prison life. The nature and duration of sentence should bear some reasonable relation to the purpose for which the individual is committed to jail. Keeping in view the age of the petitioner and the fact that he is only wage earner of his family, long term of sentence would affect him and his family adversely.

As a result of the above discussion, this revision succeeds in part. The conviction of the petitioner for the offences under section 304 A/279/337 I.P.C. is hereby affirmed. Sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the petitioner for the offence under section 304A I.P.C. is hereby reduced to one year. The sentence of fine alongwith its default clause shall stand. The sentence imposed upon the petitioner for the remaining offences are affirmed. The substantial sentence of imprisonment for all the offences shall run concurrently as ordered by the trial court.