Piara Singh vs State of Punjab

A.S. Garg, J.

Piara Singh petitioner, who was driver of illfated bus has filed the present revision against his conviction and sentence on the allegations that by rash and negligent driving be caused the death of seven persons and caused injuries to several other persons including Meena Devi, PW 2, whose right leg had to be amputated and Chander Rekha, PW.3 who had fractured her leg.

On 4.3.1984, the petitioner was driving bus No. PBL 309 and was proceeding from Chandigarh to Kharar on the highway. When it was around 11 A.M. he came across an Ambassador car bearing No. CHA8995 which allegedly took a sudden turn on the road so as to move to village Daun. The petitioner could not control the vehicle and suddenly applied brakes as a result of which he struck the bus against the said car thereby causing injuries to the occupants of the car. Thereafter, the bus went ahead and did not stop and ran into the bus stop killing seven persons, namely, Suraj Prakash, Maya Devi, Naresh (Master Arun), Bhagwanti, Harjinder Singh, Karnail Kaur alias Jarnail Kaur and Tribhawan Jot Kaur besides injuring Amar Kaur, Hari Pal and Baljit Kaur etc. The matter was reported to the police. The Investigating Officer, SI Jaspal Singh, PW.20, prepared the rough site plan Ex. PW.20/A, despatched the dead bodies of the deceased for post mortem examination and the injured to the hospital for medical treatment. The post mortem reports indicated that the bodies of the deceased were badly crushed. The scene of accident with so many corpses was witnessed by a large number of persons besides the eye witnesses, namely, Meena Devi, PW.2 Chander Rekha, PW.3, Nagia Ram, PW.4, Hari Pal, PW.6, Baljit Kaur, PW.8 and Suhagwati, PW.25, indicating the alleged rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus for which he was challaned and prosecuted. The learned trial Court after considering the evidence on the record convicted the petitioner under Sections 304A, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each for offences under Sections 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. However, all the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. In appeal filed by the petitioner, the learned Sessions Judge, Ropar, maintained the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court. Hence this revision.

The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the situation became beyond the control of the driver of the bus when the car suddenly took a turn without giving a signal on the road and in such a situation the driverpetitioner did his best to divert the bus so as to avert the expected much bigger loss than what has been done. According to the learned counsel the act of the petitioner was in good faith and a bona fide one and to the best of his ability he tried to save the situation.

The learned counsel relied upon the authorities of this Court in Sultan Singh v. State of Haryana, 1986(2) C.L.R. 18 and Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1979 PLR 631. In these cases a cyclist came in front of a vehicle and to save him another accident took place and, therefore, it was held that it was not the fault of the driver.

In the case in hand there is positive case of the eye witnesses that a car was coming on the main road but at the same time the driver of the bus was negligent and he did not drive the bus in a careful manner. The witnesses blamed the petitioner for having caused the accident. The plea of the defence in the case in hand has been that the petitioner was driving the said bus at the given time but because of the sudden appearance of the car the said accident took place. He also produced three witnesses, namely, Lachhman Singh, DW.1, Jagrup Singh, DW.2 and Raghbir Singh, DW.3 in support of his version.

The site plan Ex. PW.20/A indicates that the car did not emerge so suddenly as is claimed. The car was at a quite distance from the bus. A site plan always is an important document in such case. Such a situation is to be visualised with a practical situation that one has not only to look to where the vehicles are shown to have stuck up in the site plan but a situation little earlier to the actual taking place of the accident. The bus driver is going on the main road and from a distance he could have seen the car if moving on one side of the road and could have seen if mount on the metalled road so as to enable the driver of the car to enter into the village. So in the case in hand the driver could have very well seen the car coming on the road and it is not a case that it came suddenly. There is no obstruction between the driver of the bus and the car to prevent the driver of the bus from looking forward as well as on both sides of the road. A driver of the bus who is carrying passengers on the highway and even any other driver, is expected to see and normally they do see the vehicles, the cyclist, the pedestrian emerging towards the road to enable a driver to slow down his vehicle to give safe passage to them. In the given situation one cannot blame the driver of the car that it emerged on the road. Therefore, the afore cited authorities are not applicable to the case in hand. Not only the bus did not stop after hitting the car but even went ahead and ran into the passengers at the bus stop where large number of persons were standing. So the driver of the bus neither could avert the accident nor could avert the situation in a manner that he caused lesser loss than expected. It is a clear case of extreme negligence on the part of the driverpetitioner who did not at all try to foresee the car coming on the main road nor did he try to slow down the vehicle when a bus stop was approaching and tried to apply brakes when it was too late as he woke up from his slumber and totally unmindful of the situation drove the bus at such a high speed that he possibly could not control the bus at the relevant time. So he is exclusively responsible for causing such a serious accident whereby precious lives of seven persons were lost.

The eye witnesses have given a consistent version with regard to the accident and no discrepancy worth the name could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mere fact that Chander Rekha PW.2 was crossexamined by the A.P.P. would not be sufficient to discard her testimony as a whole. She was merely crossexamined with regard to the year of accident and she stated that she had inadvertently mentioned the year as 1981 instead of 1984 and that the accident took place in March, 1984.

The learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that the petitioner has now retired from the service and is aged about 70 years. According to him, the accident took place as far back as 1984 and therefore, a lenient view may be taken. In my opinion, these are not sufficient reasons to mitigate the question of sentence to he awarded to the petitioner. In such a case of reckless and callous act of the petitioner, he does not deserve any sympathy and rather in such a case there is no scope for interference with the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below. Hence this revision is dismissed.

Revision dismissed.