Narinder Kumar vs State of H.P.

Dev Darshan Sud, J.—The petitioner is aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the two Courts below sentencing him to undergo six month rigorous imprisonment each for offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, 100/- and 300/- respectively.

The prosecution case is that on 11th December, 1993 around 9.50 P.M. PW1 Ashok Kumar alongwith PW2 Chaman Lal were returning to Sarkaghat after attending a marriage at Dabrog. Chaman Lal was the driver and Ashok Kumar was the pillion rider. When they reached near the bridge opposite the IPH office, jeep bearing No. HP-28-0551, which was being driven by the petitioner, collided against the scooter as a result of which the scooter suffered damages and the scooter driver and pillion rider suffered injuries. According to the evidence on record, the jeep was being driven in rash or negligent manner and did not have its headlights on at the time when the accident occurred. The injured were shifted to the hospital at Sarkaghat by Inder, father-in-law of PW3. There were four injuries on his person and one on Ashok Kumar. The prosecution examined nine witnesses to prove its case.

From the evidence on record, the Court held that the prosecution had been able to prove its case as recorded in FIR Ext.PW1/A that the accident had taken place as alleged and that the petitioner had run away from the spot immediately after the accident. The learned trial Court also took into note that both these witnesses had stated that the jeep was being driven in a zig-zag manner by the petitioner without caring the life and safety of the persons walking on the road. The Court took into consideration the site plan Ext.PW9/B to hold that road was sufficiently wide at the spot and no accident could take place if a motor vehicle was driven in a safe manner. The prosecution also tried to establish that the petitioner was in a drunken condition at the time when he was driving the jeep for the reason that when he got down from the jeep, he could not walk straight but was walking in an ungainly manner which shows that he was in a drunken. Though the Court holds that this may be an improvement in the case as this fact was not stated before the police but the fact still remains that jeep was being driven in a zig-zig manner. On the basis of this, the learned trial Court convicted the petitioner.

An appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi affirming the findings and the conclusion arrived at by the learned Court below. The learned Appellate Court has also noted that at the time when the accident took place, the road was not congested as there was no traffic on the road except these two vehicles. The petitioner urged that he was falsely implicated in the case as it had been filed at the behest of Inder, father-in-law of PW3, who was inimical towards the petitioner. But this story was disbelieved on the ground that no such case was put up by the defence when PW3 Hari Singh was in the witness box.

I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and also gone through the record.

Learned Counsel has stressed on the fact that according to the prosecution, there was an independent witness present on the spot but at no point of time any effort was made to examine him. He submits that evidence of both witnesses i.e. PW1 Ashok Kumar and PW2 Chaman Lal should be discarded as they were both interested witnesses. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Both PWs 1 and 2 are injured in this case. It cannot be said that merely because they sustained injuries they will depose falsely. It is the entirety of evidence on record which is to be considered. I have scrutinized their evidence to see if there are material discrepancies in their statements which in any manner establish the case of defence, that is to say that accident never occurred because of the rash or negligent driving of the petitioner. I am unable to persuade myself to take this view and I concur with the findings arrived at by the Courts below. In revisional jurisdiction it is always open to this Court to consider the evidence if there is any perversity in conclusion by the Courts below which I do not find exists in this case. In these circumstances, I hold that there is no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.

On the quantum of sentence, learned Additional Advocate General contends that a stern sentence should be imposed upon the petitioner as it has been established on record that he was in a drunken state at the time when he was driving the jeep. It is unfortunate that the petitioner could not be apprehended and subjected to medical examination which would establish as to whether he was drunk or not. I cannot base my findings on mere allegations.

Cases involving road accidents are to be dealt with seriously because of the increasing menace of rash and negligent driving and when such accidents occur, while the driver is under the influence of alcohol, it would not only be dangerous to his life, but also to every body else using the road. Driving without headlights cannot be overlooked. In these circumstances, the inexorable delay of the Criminal System prompts this Court to set aside the sentence of imprisonment. However, I would deem it fit and proper that in addition to the sentence of fine which has been imposed upon him, he additionally pays a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as compensation to both the injured. It will be paid to the injured in equal proportion by the trial Court. This amount will be deposited by the petitioner herein before the trial Court within a period of ten weeks from today. This amount shall be released by the trial Court in favour of both the injured Ashok Kumar and Chaman Lal. It is clarified that in case the deposit is not made within the period so allowed, the sentence of imprisonment shall revive which shall be executed with due promptitude by the trial Court. This judgment is confirmed to its own facts and will not be treated as a precedent. The amount paid shall not be deducted from any other amount awarded to the injured under any action civil/criminal.