Nirmal Singh vs State of Punjab

M.L. Singhal, J.

The prosecution case in brief is that on 2.3.1991, H.C Ranjit Singh along with some other police officials was present near the Gurdwara of village Mallian at about 11 A.M. on AmritsarJalandhar Road. A Maruti car bearing No. PCM 286 was seen by H.C. Ranjit Singh coming from Amritsar side on its correct left hand side. Truck No. PB10A9698 was seen coming from Jalandhar side at a rash speed. Driver of the truck did not blow any horn. Driver of the truck brought the truck to wrong side in a rash and negligent manner. Driver of the car tried to save his vehicle. Truck dashed against the car and dragged it to the other side of the road. Truck stopped and the driver of the truck ran away from the spot. Occurrence was witnessed by constable Ranjit Singh. Three occupants of the car namely Rakesh Kumar, K.L. Sharma and a babygirl Sheetal Sharma died at the spot. Car was severely damaged. HC Ranjit Singh left for reporting the matter to the police. ASI Onkar Singh met him at bus stand Mallian in front of the Gurdwara where he made statement Ex.PW10/A on the basis of which case FIR No. 62 was registered under section 304A/427 Indian Penal Code at PS Jandiala. Car was taken into possession by the investigating officer. Truck was also taken into possession. Both these vehicles were got mechanically tested from Shri Manohar Lal, a Punjab Roadways mechanic. Place of accident was got photographed. On 10.3.1991, the accused was produced before the investigating officer by Lambardar Dalip Singh. HC Ranjit Singh and constable Ranjit Singh had identified Nirmal Singh accused as having been on the wheel of the offending truck at the relevant time when this ghastly accident took place. After investigation, accused was challaned. Accused was charged under Section 304A Indian Penal Code.

On the conclusion of the trial, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amritsar found the charge under section 304A Indian Penal Code proved against the accused. He accordingly convicted him under section 304A IPC and sentenced him to undergo R1 for 2 years. He also sentenced him to pay fine of Rs. 500/. In default of payment of fine, he ordered him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. Aggrieved from his conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 4.8.1995, accused went in appeal to the Court of Session. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar found the appeal to be without any merit. He accordingly dismissed the appeal, both as regards conviction and sentence vide order dated 15.10.1998. Nirmal Singh has felt disappointed with conviction and sentence recorded against him by the two courts below and has come up in revision to this Court.

It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that, according to the prosecution, driver of the offending truck ran away from the spot and if he ran away from the spot, the prosecution should have produced evidence to show that it was he who was driving the offending truck at the relevant time. It has been submitted that the petitioner was not put up at test identification parade. If he had been put up at test identification parade and HC Ranjit Singh called upon to identify the one who was driving the offending truck at the relevant time, the evidence of identification parade would have been clincher. Suffice it to say, accused did not claim any identification parade during investigation. He took one Dalip Singh Lambardar with him and appeared before the police. If he had not been driving the offending truck at the relevant time, he would not have sought the good offices of Dalip Singh Lambardar for causing his appearance before the police. If the accused were feeling that it was not he but somebody else who was driving the offending truck, he should have surrendered before the Magistrate and made him a request that he be sent to jail and test identification parade arranged to identify him. It was next submitted that the presence of HC Ranjit Singh at the spot was doubtful. According to him, there were other police officials also at the time of accident. It has been submitted that it was strange that none of them tried to apprehend the driver of the truck. Suffice it to say, HC Ranjit Singh etc. must have felt aghast at the scene and they must not have been in a position to chase the driver and nab him. Photographs of the place of mishap suggest that the accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver. Why should the truck have gone to the wrong side when car was coming from Amritsar side on its correct left hand side. When truck was coming from Jalandhar side i.e. opposite side, truck should not have left its own side and gone to the other side in which the car was coming. HC Ranjit Singh clearly stated that car was coming on the correct left hand side of the road and the driver of the truck brought the truck to wrong side and truck dashed against the car and, therefore, car was dragged to the other side of the road. Truck driver, after hitting the car, had dragged the car with the truck towards the left hand side.

It was next submitted that the conviction hinges on the uncorroborated testimony of HC Ranjit Singh. Constable Ranjit Singh who was said to have been present at the spot along with HC Ranjit Singh has not said a word about the cause of accident. Suffice it to say, the Public Prosecutor who was conducting the prosecution at the trial, did not examine constable Ranjit Singh with regard to the cause of accident. He examined constable Ranjit Singh only with regard to the taking of the truck into possession feeling that constable Ranjit Singh was concerned only with the recovery of the truck.

It was next submitted that in the site plan, drag marks have not been shown in the absence of drag marks, it cannot be said that the truck dragged the car to the wrong side of the road i.e., to its own side. Suffice it to say, HC Ranjit Singh has quite clearly stated that the car was coming on its correct left hand side from Amritsar side and it was this truck which dashed against the car by approaching it on the other side. I have gone through the judgment recorded by the learned Magistrate as well as that recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the appreciation of evidence by the learned Magistrate. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the reappreciation of evidence by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. In my opinion, the learned Magistrate justifiably found the charge proved against the petitioner and convicted him and Additional Sessions Judge dismissed his appeal convicting him.

Faced with this position, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner deserves to be released on probation of good conduct inasmuch as he is about 50 years old and has been facing the vagaries of the trial for the last 7 years and he is the sole bread winner of the family comprising his wife and two minor children. This trial has been hanging on his head like damocles sword for the last 7 years. Petitioner does not deserve to be released on probation of good conduct as if he had been careful, circumspect and cautious while driving the truck on a highway, this ghastly tragedy which is attributable clearly to the rash, negligent and careless driving of the truck by the petitioner effaced three human lives from the face of this earth in the twinkling of an eye. Petitioner ought to have known that highways are meant to be used not by truck drivers alone but by pedestrians, cyclists, scooterists, car drivers, etc. Road accidents are on the increase. We find daily effacement of many human lives in the twinkling of an eye due to road accidents. Release of the petitioner on probation of good conduct will work only as a let off and it would not have any salutary effect on him.

Since the petitioner has been suffering the vagaries of criminal trial for the last 6 years, I feel some consideration should be shown to him in the matter of sentence. So, the sentence imposed upon him is reduced to R1 for one year. Fine in enhanced to Rs. 4,000/. Amount of fine shall be shared equally by the heirs of the deceased.

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

Revision dismissed.