Munish Kumar vs State of Punjab

A.N. Jindal, J.—Sukhwinder Kaur and Sarbjit Singh died whereas Baljit Kaur suffered injuries on account of the alleged rash and negligent driving of Maruti Van, bearing registration No. PB-08-D-9805, by the accused-petitioner (herein referred as ''the accused'') regarding which he was prosecuted. Consequently, vide judgment dated 25.01.2002, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, for the offence u/s 304A. The appeal, preferred by him, was also dismissed vide judgment dated 11.03.2003, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar.

On 09.02.1996, Swaran Singh got recorded in his statement that he was going to attend the marriage of his brother in law''s daughter Sukhwinder Kaur fixed for 11.02.1996, on scooter whereas his son Sarbjit Singh alongwith his wife Baljit Kaur and sister Sukhwinder Kaur was also going ahead of him on a scooter bearing registration No. PB-02-G-7386. When they reached near the brick kiln at Tangra, a Maruti Van bearing registration No. PBG-8D-9805, being driven rashly and negligently and at fast speed came from the side of Amritsar and struck against the scooter of Sarbjit Singh. Resultantly, all the three persons, riding on the scooter fell down and suffered injuries. They were shifted to hospital. Munish Kumar petitioner-accused also suffered injuries and he was also shifted to Civil Hospital, Amritsar. Ruqa was sent by Head Constable Balwinder Singh, on the basis of which FIR was registered. However, lateron Sarbjit Singh and Sukhwinder Kaur expired and the offence was converted by adding Section 304A IPC. The accused was arrested; both the vehicles were taken into possession, rough site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared; statements of the witnesses were recorded, inquest reports were also prepared and the autopsy was conducted on the dead bodies. On completion of investigation, challan was presented against the accused.

In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Dr. Ashok Chanana (PW1), who conducted the autopsy of the dead bodies, Swaran Singh complainant (PW2), Baljit Kaur (PW3), Head Constable Balwinder Singh (PW4) and Swaran Singh (PW5). That apart, the prosecution also proved the record of scooter Ex.P1, post mortem reports of Sarbjit Singh and Sukhwinder Kaur Ex.PA and Ex.PB respectively, ruqa Ex.P1/A, FIR Ex.PW4/A/1, inquest report of Sukhwinder Kaur Ex.PWA/B, application made by the Investigating Officer to the doctor regarding medical examination of accused Munish Kumar Ex.PW4/D, inquest report of Sarbjit Singh Ex.PW4/E, application made by the Investigating Officer to the doctor regarding post mortem report of Sarbjit Singh Ex.PW4/F, seizure memo of dead body from the spot Ex.PW4/G, application made by the Investigating Officer to the doctor regarding medical examination of the injured Baljit Kaur Ex.PW4/H, seizure memo of the photographs and negatives Ex.PW4/J, seizure memo of the R.C. of the Van and driving licence of accused Ex.PG, driving licence of Sarbjit Singh Ex.P1, Photostat copy of the R.C. of the Maruti Van No. PB-08D-9805 as Mark X, seizure memo of the shoes of Sukhwinder Kaur recovered from the spot Ex.PD, seizure memo of the broken glasses Ex.PE, seizure memo of the R.C. of scooter alongwith driving licence of deceased Sarbjit Singh as Ex.PX. Since the prosecution failed to complete its evidence despite the ample opportunity given to it, therefore, the same was closed by order.

When examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in the case.

In defence, the accused examined Rakesh Kumar (DW1) and Surinder Kumar (DW2).

The trial ended in conviction. The appeal, preferred by him was also dismissed.

The necessary essentials for indicting the accused were the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by him. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused has doubted the presence of Swaran Singh while urging that, had he been present and was following the deceased then he would not have allowed Sarbjit Singh to carry the two ladies. He would have taken one of them on his scooter particularly when he had no person on his pillion.

Having given my thoughtful consideration to this contention, raised on behalf of the petitioner, the same lacks merit. The definite case of the prosecution is that the deceased persons alongwith Baljit Kaur had started on one scooter and at the time of accident Swaran Singh was following them on a separate scooter but no such question was asked to the Swaran Singh if he had started at the same time when Sarbjit Singh had set for the journey. In any case, despite the prohibition for carrying two passengers on scooter, the deceased cannot be said to be negligent while carrying two persons on the pillion. Be that as it may, law provides for taking only one person on the pillion yet the carrying of the second person on the scooter does not in any way shift the onus of the accused and entitles him to claim that he was not rash and negligent in driving the offending vehicle.

The prosecution in this case has been successful in proving the element of rashness and negligence on the part of the accused as a result of which the accident took place whereas the accused has failed to shift the onus by leading any cogent and convincing evidence and also from the circumstances that he was not negligent. In this case, Swaran Singh, who was following the scooter, has categorically, stated that the accused while driving the Maruti car rashly and negligently struck against the scooter of Sarbjit Singh thereby dragging him to some extent.

Notwithstanding the fact that the accused has raised a finger about the presence of Swaran Singh at the spot. Baljit Kaur (injured) would be the last person to implicate the accused in place of real culprit. She had the occasion and opportunity to see the accused, as after he turned the maruti van turtle came out and stayed with Baljit Kaur for a while. Both the witnesses are quite consistent in their statements with regard to the time, place and manner in which the accident took place and the ocular version given by them is quite consistent with the medical evidence. Had Baljit Kaur not suffered the injuries then some doubt qua the presence of Swaran Singh and Baljit Kaur could be raised. But in the instant case, in view of the categoric testimony of Baljit Kaur and the prompt FIR lodged by Swaran Singh, it is clearly established that Swaran Sigh was also present at the spot.

As regards the argument that site plan was not prepared by the Investigating Officer and in the absence of which it is difficult to make assessment of rashness, speed and situation of the vehicles and account of the circumstances leading to prove rashness and negligence. In this regard, it is noticed that the site plan Ex.PW4/B, as prepared by the Investigating Officer over the inquest report and proved by the prosecution, could equally be taken into consideration. The site plan Ex.PW4/B, prepared over the inquest report, clearly reveals that the Maruti Van bearing registration No. PB-08-D-9805 after hitting the scooter fell into the ditches. As such, it would well be assessed as to how much rash and negligent the accused was. Notwithstanding the fact that photographs were not exhibited for want of negatives yet the same, being part of the record, as collected by the Investigating Officer during the investigation, could be seen when the accused was highly interested and anxious to press the Court for examining the same. However, the photographs do not in any way help the case of the accused. The photograph No. 2 reveals that the said Maruti van, after striking against the scooter, fell down in the ditches and turned turtle. The mechanical report and the seizure memo Ex.PG with regard to taking into possession Maruti Van, RC and driving licence of the accused reveal that the right side of the Maruti van was completely damaged and its steering was broken which also indicate that the accused struck his right side in the oncoming scooter and caused the accident. That also shows that the scooter was on the left side of the road when the accident took place. The rash driving by the accused could further be concluded from the fact that he drove the van in such a manner that he could not control it and striking the van in the scooter, fell into the ditches and he himself also suffered the injuries.

The identity of the accused stands established for the variety of reasons; viz. the vehicle alongwith the licence of the accused and the registration of the vehicle were taken into possession on the day of accident by the Investigating Officer. Accused himself had also suffered injuries and the witnesses had also duly identified and categorically stated that it was the accused who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident.

As regards the defence, set up by the accused, two witnesses namely Rakesh Kumar and Surinder Kumar were examined by him, who stated that the accident took place due to the fault on the part of Sarbjit Singh deceased. However, on examination of their statements, it transpires that they are not true to their version. Had they seen the occurrence then they would have forthwith informed the Investigating Officer or the accused would have filed the complaint citing them as witnesses with the allegations that the accident took place for the fault on the part of Sarbjit Singh deceased. Their statements for the first time in the Court go a long way to establish that the defence version is concocted and an afterthought.

As regards the quantum of sentence, the careless and rash driving at the hands of the ruthless and unscrupulous drivers, ignoring the traffic rules, has become a fashion of the day and such activities are required to be curbed stringently. As such, no grounds for extending the leniency on the quantum of sentence are made out.

Resultantly, finding no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed.