Nagina Singh vs State of Punjab

A.N. Jindal, J.—This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 29.10.2001, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner-accused (herein referred as ''the petitioner'') against the judgment dated 30.03.1996, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rupnagar, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 400/- for the offence u/s 304A IPC.

The case was registered at the instance of Dalbara Singh complainant son of Kabal Singh (herein referred as ''the complainant'') at Police Station Chamkaur Sahib, District Ropar. He was working as a Security Guard-cum-Gunman in the Punjab Fibers Limited Factory, Rail Majra. He disclosed that on the aforesaid date, he was on duty at bus-stand Rail Majra and one Rameshwar Mehton, another employee of his factory was waiting for the bus. At about 9:00 a.m., the petitioner while driving the bus bearing registration No. PB-12-A-9241 came from the side of village Toansa rashly and negligently and struck against Rameshwar Mehton. Resultantly, he fell down in the middle of the road, suffered head injury and died at the spot. On the aforesaid statement, the case was registered against the petitioner. He was arrested, photographs of the place of occurrence were taken, aforesaid offending bus was taken into possession, inquest report was prepared by the Investigating Officer and the dead body of Rameshwar Mehton was sent for post mortem. After collecting all the documents and statements of the witnesses, challan was presented in the Court.

The petitioner was charged u/s 279, 304A IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Head Constable Tarlochan Singh (PW1), Raman Kumar, photographer (PW2), Dalbara Singh, eye witness (PW3), Ajesh Mehton (PW4), Dr. Raman Kumar Aggarwal (PW5) and ASI Paramjit Singh, Police Lines, Ropar (PW6). After tendering into evidence the documents Ex.PW1/A, PW2/A. PW3/A to PW3/C, PW5/A to PW5/C, PW6/A to PW6/E and Ex.P1 to Ex.P9, the prosecution closed its evidence.

When examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C., the petitioner denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in the case. In defence, he examined Pargat Singh (DW1) and Rattan Singh (DW2).

On scrutiny of the evidence, the petitioner was convicted u/s 279 and 304A IPC. However, he was convicted and sentenced only u/s 304A IPC, obviously for the reasons that the offence u/s 279 I.P.C. was lesser one. His appeal was also dismissed.

The prime contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that since Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ropar (herein referred as ''the Tribunal) vide judgment dated 01.03.1997 had dismissed the claim petition while disbelieving the witness Dalbara Singh. Now the said judgment having the probative value could be used to discard the statement of Dalbara Singh in the criminal case. No doubt the judgment passed by the Tribunal in a motor accident case has a probative value but the same is not conclusive to determine the facts of the criminal case. As a matter of fact, both the trial Courts as well as the first Appellate Court while appreciating the statement of Dalbara Singh eye witness, the post mortem report and the photographs, had taken the consistent view that it was due to rashness and negligence of the petitioner that the accident took place, due to which valuable life was lost. The offending bus was taken into custody. Dalbara Singh has categorically stated that it was the petitioner who was driving the bus at the relevant time. The offending bus belonging to Punjab Roadways must have moved at the scheduled time, being driven by the person deputed by the roadways authorities for driving the same. No evidence has been produced by the petitioner that he was not on duty over the said bus on the relevant day. The offending bus was taken into possession from the spot vide memo Ex.PW3/B on the same day. In the present case, besides the testimony of Dalbara Singh (PW) the more relevant is the testimony of two defence witnesses, who also admitted that the accident had taken place at the spot on the alleged date of occurrence whereby Rameshwar Mehton had died but they have set up a different case that it was not the bus bearing registration No. PB12-A-9241 and it was different bus. Now the learned Counsel for the petitioner, while referring the testimony of doctor, wants to argue that the accident had taken place for other reasons i.e. may be due to sudden fall upon a hard surface and not by way of accident. This argument raised by learned Counsel for the petitioner becomes a redundant in view of the testimony of the defence witness. With regard to the presence of Dalbara Singh at the spot, DW1 Pargat Singh has not denied his presence at the spot. Even otherwise PW Dalbara Singh has categorically explained about his presence at the spot while testifying that he was posted as Gunman in the Punjab Fibers Limited Factory, Rail Majra and his duty was at the Rail Majra bus stand where the occurrence had taken place. It has also come in his statement that the factory premises are at a distance of 10 or 12 killas from the bus stand. It has normally scene that though the factory may be at some distance from the bus stand but the gates of the factory are made on the ingress point of the industrial premises and the security personnel are appointed at the entry points. It is not in dispute that the factory premises are near the bus stand. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has tried to give a twist to the statement of Dalbara Singh while referring to his cross-examination where he stated that his duty is in the factory upto 4:00 or 5:00 p.m. By this, however, he never meant that he gives duty inside the premises of Punjab Fibers Limited. No specific question was asked to him at what place of the factory premises, he was on duty. Even others security personnel are normally posted out in the factory to keep vigil over the miscreants from outside. No record of the aforesaid industrial establishment was summoned to prove his place of duty, therefore, it would be difficult to turn down the statement of Dalbara Singh when he stated that his duty was at the bus stand Rail Majra. While scrutinizing his statement, it inspires the confidence of the Court. This witness has been tested by way of cross-examination and nothing material could be elicited from his testimony which could create a dent in the prosecution version. His testimony stands corroborated by Dr. Raman Kumar Aggarwal, E.M.O., Civil Hospital, Ropar, who deposed that on post mortem examination of Rameshwar Mehton, seven injuries were detected which were sufficient for cause of death. In the ordinary course of nature, ASI Paramjit Singh has also fully supported the prosecution case. As regards the judgment of Tribunal, it may be observed that as already said, it may be relevant but as the proceedings conducted by the Tribunal are summary in notice, the same are not binding and conclusive in the criminal Court. It is further noticed that the trial was disposed of much prior to the decision of the Tribunal, i.e. on 01.03.1997 yet the appeal was decided much after the judgment passed by the Tribunal i.e. on 29.10.2001 but this judgment was never brought on record to the notice of Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar, at the time of disposal of the appeal. Even nothing was mentioned in the grounds of revision petition about this judgment passed by the Tribunal. However, this judgment is being produced at the time of final arguments at this revisional stage. Admittedly, the said judgment is not binding on the criminal Court which is to decide the case independently. Nothing has been shown by the Counsel for the petitioner that this judgment has become final. As such, no reliance could be placed over the same at this revisional stage. No defect or irregularity has been found in the findings returned by both the Courts below who consistently observed that the accident took place for the fault on the part of the petitioner.

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. The Appellate Court appears to have already granted the lesser sentence.

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