Rajbir Singh vs State of Union Territory, Chandigarh

M.L. Singhal, J.

The prosecution case in brief is that Mohinder Kaur, who was student of BAI in Govt. College for Girls, Sector 42, Chandigarh was returning from the college to her house in Section 37 on bicycle on 5.12.1990 at about 22.15 p.m. She was being followed on another bicycle by her sister''s son Amarjit Singh. When she and Amarjit Singh took a turn near Badminton Stadium, Sector 42 and were going to the road leading to Village Attawa, in the opposite direction, oil tanker bearing registration No. PIP 5189 came. It was being driven rashly and negligently by Rajbir Singh (petitioner herein). Tanker hit the bicycle being paddled by Mohinder Kaur. She fell down and the right front wheel of the tanker passed over the right shoulder of Mohinder Kaur. Amarjit Singh went near her and found Mohinder Kaur to have succumbed to her injuries. On receipt of telephonic call from some body, police party headed by SI Surinder Kumar came to the spot. Amarjit Singh made statement Ex. PD before SI Surinder Kumar at about 2.45 p.m. on the basis of which case FIR No. 45 was registered on 5.12.90 at PS Sector 36, Chandigarh under section 279/304A IPC. SI Surinder Kumar arrested the accused at the spot. After investigation, accused was challaned under section 279/304A IPC. Accused was charged under section 279/304A IPC.

On the conclusion of the trial, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh vide order dated 6.12.1995 found the charge proved against the accused under section 279/304A IPC. He accordingly convicted him thereunder. He sentenced him to undergo RI for 3 months under section 279 IPC. He sentenced him to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ or in default to undergo further RI for 3 months under section 304A IPC. He ordered the sentence to run concurrently. Rajbir Singh went in appeal to the Court of Session. Learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed his appeal but reduced his sentence to RI for 9 months under section 304A IPC. Sentence of fine was maintained. Sentence awarded under section 279 IPC was also maintained.

Rajbir Singh has yet come to this court through this revision and has challenged his conviction and sentence recorded against him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no damage was caused to the bicycle and if there had been any impact from the front side and deceased run over by the front tyre, there would have been damage to the bicycle. She submitted that as per photograph Ex. P1, blood stuck to the rear tyre of the tanker which shows that the deceased was sitting on the carrier of the bicycle and because of her negligence she fell down on the road and was crushed under the rear tyre of the tanker. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that some sand was lying on the left hand side of the road and, therefore, the tanker was turned towards the right. Tanker should not have gone on the right side of the road when there was sufficient space between the tanker and the heap of sand.

Assuming that Mohinder Kaur was not crushed by the front tyre, it is clear that the driver had taken the tanker towards the right and Mohinder Kaur became scared and she fell down under the tanker. In that event also, the driver had to be dubbed as negligent. PW8 Virender Mohan and PW9 Amarjit Singh have supported the prosecution case. They have stated that the accused hit the bicycle of the deceased with his tanker while driving it rashly and negligently. Driver of the tanker was apprehended at the spot. Photographs taken immediately after the accident show the deceased lying behind the front right tyre of the tanker. Position of the tanker and the bicycle of the deceased show that the bicycle was on extreme left side of the road while the tanker was on its extreme right side i.e. on the wrong side. It shows that the tanker left its correct side and went on to the wrong side.

In my opinion, the learned courts below went quite deep into the evidence and appreciated it correctly. Accused was justifiably convicted by the learned Magistrate. His appeal was justifiably dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. He cannot be released on probation of good conduct as if he had driven the tanker with circumspection, care and caution, Mohinder Kaur a student of BAI would not have lost her life. Loss of young life is clearly attributable to the rash and negligent driving of the tanker by the petitioner.

Petitioner has been facing the vagaries of the trial for the last about 78 years. Since he has been facing the vagaries of this trial for the last 78 years and this trial has been hanging on his head like damocle''s sword, I think sentence imposed upon him should be slashed still further and broigjt down. Sentence imposed upon him is slashed and brought down to 6 months RI but fine is enhanced Rs. 5,000/ under Section 304A IPC. In default of payment of fine, he will undergo further RI for 2 months. Sentence imposed upon him under section 279 IPC shall, however, remain intact.

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

Entire amount of fine, if recovered, shall be paid to the father of the deceased girl Mohinder Kaur.