Malkiat Singh vs State of Punjab

M.L. Singhal, J.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 12.5.1989 Dilbagh Singh along with his father, Gurdip Singh, and his brother Balbir Singh @ Dalbir Singh was going towards Ambala from Rajpura in truck No. HRA No. 7344 being driven by Gurdip Singh. Balbir Singh and Dilbagh Singh were sitting with him. At about 6.00 A.M. when they were at some distance from village Mehmoodpur, Malkiat Singh accused came driving truck No. URM 2395 at a very fast speed from the opposite side. Truck No. URM 2395 rammed into the truck No. HRA 7344 and as a result of which, the face of truck No. HRA 7344 turned towards Rajpura. Gurdip Singh, Balbir Singh and Dilbagh Singh received serious injuries. Injured were removed to the hospital at Ambala where they were given treatment. They were medically examined. Dilbagh Singh injured was referred to PGI Chandigarh where he succumbed to his injuries. Accident was witnessed by Maharaj Singh and Manjit Singh. Maharaj Singh reported the matter to the police. On the basis of his statement, F.I.R. No. 91 dated 12.5.1989 was registered at P.S. Rajpura under Sections 279/337A IPC at P.S. Rajpura. All the three injured were removed to the hospital. Dilbagh Singh succumbed to injuries on 13.5.1989.

After investigation, Malkiat Singh was challaned under Section 228/304A IPC. Malkiat Singh was charged under Sections 228/304A IPC. He pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. On conclusion of the trial, the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rajpura found the charge under Section 304A IPC proved against him. He, accordingly, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for two months, vide order dated 14.5.1997. Malkiat Singh went in appeal to the Court of Session. His appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala.

Malkiat Singh has knocked the door of this Court through this revision petition and has prayed for acquittal.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had been convicted on the lone uncorroborated statement of Gurdip Singh PW6. It has been submitted that his statement has not been corroborated by Balbir Singh PW3. It has also been submitted that the Investigating Officer has not been examined. Without the Investigating Officer having been examined how could the Court feel about the relative position of the trucks at the spot so as to see which of the trucks authored the accident. Suffice it to say that there are photographs on the records of the case which suggest that truck No. URM 2395 being driven by Malkiat Singh authored this accident. Balbir Singh PW3 has stated that two persons, namely, Bhupinder Singh and Malkiat Singh were sitting in the truck which rammed into their truck. He has not stated whether Bhupinder Singh or Malkiat Singh was driving the truck. Gurdip Singh PW6 has categorically stated that it was Malkiat Singh who was driving the truck. He has stated that Malkiat Singh was driving the truck negligently and rashly. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no positive evidence to show that Malkiat Singh was driving truck No. URM 2395. It would bear repetition that Gurdip Singh PW6 has stated that Malkiat Singh was driving the said truck. Balbir Singh PW3 has also stated that Bhupinder Singh and Malkiat Singh were sitting in the truck. Gurdip Singh PW6 has stated that when he reached in the area of Mehmoodpur while driving truck No. HRA 7344, Malkiat Singh came driving truck No. URM 2395 at a very high speed and rammed into truck No. HRA 7344. In this accident, Gurdip Singh, his son Balbir Singh and Dilbagh Singh received injuries. Dilbagh Singh expired in PGI Chandigarh. Gurdip Singh was driving the truck at a slow speed, which is clear from the fact that he covered long distance in a number of hours. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Gurdip Singh PW6 has stated that other trucks were also coming behind the truck of the accused. The speed of other trucks was 30/50 kilometres per hour. It was submitted that there is no surprise that the accident was authored by some other truck. Suffice it to say Gurdip Singh PW6 has clearly stated that the truck was being driven by Malkiat Singh who authored this accident. Nonproduction of Maharaj Singh PW who lodged the FIR will not matter because he was only an eye witness and the nonexamination of one eye witness will have no adverse effect. We have to look to the testimony of the eye witnesses who have been examined.

I have gone through the judgments of the two courts below. I do not find any flaw in the appreciation of evidence by the two courts below. In my opinion, the petitioner was rightly convicted by the learned Magistrate and his appeal was rightly dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the Court should show some leniency towards the petitioner in the matter of sentence. He should be released on probation of good conduct keeping in view that he is a first offender. Suffice it to say, the accused effaced one life in this accident and caused injuries to two others by his sheer rashness and negligence. If he had driven the truck with care and circumspection, this accident would have been averted. While on the road he ought to have known that road was to be used by others also and that he was not the only one to use the road. Road accidents are on the increase. It will be putting premium on the criminal arrogance of the accused if he is released on probation of good conduct.

Accident took place in May, 1989. He was put to trial in December, 1989. He remained under trial before the learned Magistrate for seven and a half years whereafter he was convicted and sentenced. He remained in appeal before the Court of Session for about one year. His fate hanged in the balance before the Additional Sessions Judge for one year whereafter his appeal was dismissed. He suffered the vagaries of this trial for 9 years. It is the duty of the Court to assure the accused speedy trial. If the Court is not able to assure the accused speedy trial, the Court should show him some consideration in the matter of sentence. Keeping in views that this trial has lasted for nine years during which period his fate continued hanging in balance, I take a lenient view in the matter of award of sentence to him. Sentence imposed upon him is slashed and brought down to R.I. for one year. Fine is enhanced to Rs. 4,000/. In default of payment of fine, he will further undergo R.I. for three months. Out of the amount of fine, if recovered, Rs. 1,000/ shall be paid to injured Balbir singh and Rs. 1,000/ to injured Gurdip Singh, while the remaining amount of Rs. 2,000/ shall be paid to the heirs of Dilbagh Singh.

Subject to the above modification/reduction in sentence, this revision fails and is dismissed.

Revision dismissed.