Mohinder Singh vs State of Punjab

M.L. Singhal, J.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 31.3.1993 Mohan Lal PW was coming towards village Malla Sodian at about 7 P.M. in a Maruti Van No. PB08F4810 alongwith his nephew Dharminder alias Manu. Kuldip Kumar, Sanjiv Kumar and one Paramjit Singh were also with them in that Maruti Van. Kuldip Kumar was driving that Maruti Van. Sanjiv Kumar was sitting by his side in the Maruti van. Dharminder alias Nanu was sitting on the seat behind the driver. Paramjit was occupying the left side rear seat. Mohan Lal was sitting in the Dicky on the left side. When they reached near village Dhahan, a private bus No. PUC4880 of Onkar Bus Service came from the opposite direction at a rash and negligent speed in a zigzag manner and without blowing any horn. Occupants of the Maruti Van raised alarm `Bach Jao''. Kuldip Kumar made every effort to save the occupants of the Maruti Van. He tried to take the Maruti van on the extreme left side of the road but the bus collided with the Maruti van. As a result of the collision, the front and middle portion of the van got badly damaged. During the time when Mohan Lal was in the process of extricating himself, Kuldip Kumar, Sanjiv Kumar and Dharminder alias Nanu died at the spot. Paramjit also sustained multiple injuries. He was admitted to Civil Hospital, Dhahan. But driver ran away from the spot alongwith the conductor. Mohan Lal made statement Ex.PW3/A before HC Manjit Singh. On the basis of his statement, case FIR No. 23 was registered at Police Station Banga under sections 304A, 338 and 427 IPC on 31.3.1993. After investigation, Mohinder Singh accused (petitioner herein) was challaned under Sections 279/304A/427 IPC.

Accused was charged under sections 279/304A/427 IPC. He pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.

On the conclusion of the trial, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nawashahr found the charge under sections 279/304A of the Indian Penal Code proved against the accused. He, accordingly, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo RI for two months on the first count. On the second count, he sentenced him to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ or in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for a period of one month vide order dated 12.8.1997.

Mohinder Singh went in appeal to the Court of Sessions assailing his conviction and sentence. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nawashahr dismissed the appeal vide order dated 6.11.1998.

Mohinder Singh has not felt disheartened by his conviction and sentence recorded by the two courts below and has come up in revision to this Court challenging the dismissal of his appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nawashahr and maintaining the conviction and sentence recorded against him by the learned Magistrate.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab and have gone through the records very carefully.

Mohan Lal PW3 has supported the prosecution case. Balkar Singh PW4 who has given any eye witness account of the accident has supported Mohan Lal PW3. HC Vikramjit Singh who mechanically tested the bus and the Maruti van stated that the bus was quite in order and did not suffer from any mechanical defect. Maruti van was also quite in order and did not suffer from any mechanical defect. ASI Manjit Singh, who investigated this case, has stated about the relative position of the bus and the Maruti van at the time of the accident on the road.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that ASI Manjit Singh, who investigated this case, has stated in no uncertain terms that the accident took place as the van had struck the bus as the van was moving at a fast speed. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to fortify this submission by arguing that there were skid marks on the road and the presence of the skid marks on the road suggests that the Maruti van was coming at a fast speed. ASI Manjit Singh stated that the driver of the Maruti van was under the influence of liquor. Other occupants of the Maruti van were also under the influence of liquor. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the accident took place because the driver of the Maruti van was coming at a fast speed which he could not control. Suffice it to say no alcohol was detected on the post mortem examination of the dead bodies. Site plan Ex.PW8/C prepared by ASI Manjit Singh suggests that all the three deceased were lying on the left side of the road and the van was shown standing at point F. Bus was shown at pointG on the same side. Since bus was coming from the opposite side it should have been on the other side of the road. This shows that the bus dashed against the Maruti van by approaching Maruti van by leaving correct side of the road and going on the wrong side of the road. Mohan Lal PW correctly stated that the bus was coming at a rash and negligent speed in a zigzag manner and without blowing any horn from the opposite direction. Photographs suggest that there were no skid marks on the road. ASI Manjit Singh has not shown the skid marks. If there had been skid marks on the road, he would not have shown them in the site plan. Front portion of the van was absolutely damaged. Photographs show that the bus struck against the Maruti van with such a force that it damaged the front portion of the Maruti van altogether. This shows that the bus was coming at a fast speed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner could not assail conviction on any ground whatever.

I have gone through the judgments of both the court below. I do not any error in the appreciation of evidence by the learned Magistrate. I do not find any error in the reappreciation of evidence by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the accident allegedly took place on 31.3.93. Petitioner faced the agonies of criminal trial before the learned Magistrate for four years. After he was convicted by the learned Magistrate, he sought to try his luck before Additional Sessions Judge. His fate hanged in the balance for about 11/4 years before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge whereafter his appeal was dismissed. He has thus faced the agonies of criminal trial for five 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 trial should show some consideration in the matter of sentence. It was submitted that the petitioner should be released on probation of good conduct. He cannot be released on probation of good conduct as his negligence effaced three lives from the horizon. If he had been careful and circumspect in the driving of the bus, this accident could have seen averted. In my opinion, some consideration should be shown to the accused because he has been facing the agonies of the criminal trial for the last about five years. Trial of this case has been hanging on his head like damoclean sword. Sentence imposed upon the petitioner is slashed and is brought down to one year RI and fine is enhanced to Rs. 5000/ u/s 304A IPC. Sentence of two months RI imposed u/s 279 IPC is maintained. In default of payment of fine, petitioner shall undergo RI for three months. Entire amount, if recovered, shall go to the heirs of the respective deceased equally.

Subject to this reduction in sentence, this revision fails and is dismissed. Sentences shall run concurrently.

Revision dismissed.