Rajwinder Singh vs State of Punjab

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.—Petitioner was tried in case FIR No. 116 dated 8.6.2001 registered at Police Station Sadar, Jalalabad, under Sections 304-A, 279, & 427 IPC.

The trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner u/s 279 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.

Petitioner was also convicted and sentenced u/s 304-A IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one and a half years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.

Petitioner was further convicted and sentenced u/s 427 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.

Aggrieved against the same, petitioner had filed an appeal. The appeal was dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur. Therefore, the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner before this Court.

Notice of motion was issued and records were requisitioned.

FIR was lodged on the statement of Des Raj son of Veeru Ram. The statement has been exhibited as Ex.P1. It was stated in the FIR that Des Raj is resident of village Tellian Wala Dakhli Boor Wala, Police Station Sadar, Jalalabad. On the day of occurrence, he along with Sher Chand son of Jiwan Ram resident of village Tellian wala and Jeet Singh son of Fateh Chand Chawla, resident of Street Aggarwal, Jalalabad, in the morning, had gone on scooters for domestic work to Mandi Ladhu Ke. When they were coming back from Mandi Ladhu Ke, towards their house, then Sher Chand was driving Scooter bearing No. PB-05-E- 8317 whereas complainant was sitting on the pillion of scooter driven by Jeet Singh Chawla. When they reached near the bridge of canal at about 10.15 A.M. then a truck No. HR-47-4581 driven by Rajwinder Singh son of Mohan Singh, petitioner, came at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit the scooter without blowing the horn. The accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of offending truck and the petitioner died at the spot.

After registration of the FIR, matter was investigated.

Charges were framed against the petitioner for offences under Sections 304-A, 279 & 427 IPC.

Prosecution examined Kashmir Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector as PW.1. He proved the statement Ex.P1 made by Des Raj. He further stated that the statement was sent to the Police Station on basis of which FIR was registered. He also carried investigation at the spot.

PW.2 Ramesh Chander, Mechanic, proved Mechanical Report regarding offending truck Ex.P18.

Des Raj, complainant, had appeared as PW.3. He admitted in cross- examination that accused had fled from the spot along with truck.

PW.4 Amarjit Singh, Head Constable, had submitted Mechanical Report regarding scooter. Mechanical Report has been exhibited as Ex.P19.

Jeet Singh appeared as PW.5.

Hans Raj, Photographer, appeared as PW.6 and proved photographs Ex.P20 to Ex.P25 and he also proved negatives Ex.P26 to Ex.P31.

PW.7 Rai Singh is Clerk from the office of Assistant District Transport Officer, Rewari, and he proved the registration certificate and ownership of the truck.

PW.8 Sanjeev Kumar Sethi, Clerk from the office of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jalalabad, had proved the driving license of Sher Chand, deceased.

PW.9 Darshan Ram, Head Constable, had partly investigated the case.

PW.10 Dr. M.M. Singh conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Sher Chand. He opined that cause of death of deceased was due to injuries suffered by him and injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.

PW.11 Amrit Pal, Clerk from the office of District Transport Officer, Amritsar, had proved the registration of scooter belonging to Sher Chand.

Thereafter, the prosecution had closed its evidence and all the incriminating evidence has been put to the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C.

Counsel for the petitioner has stated that he will not be assailing the conviction of the petitioner as two Courts below have held the petitioner to be guilty of the offence. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that he is conscious that revisional Court cannot reappreciate and do re- appraisal of the evidence. Counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any patent illegality or irregularity committed by the two Courts below. Counsel for the petitioner has made an alternative prayer that since petitioner was aged 20 years at the time of occurrence, therefore, he should be released on probation.

In view of the observations of the Hon''ble Apex Court that in case of accident accused should not be released on probation, counsel for the petitioner has further modified his prayer and has submitted that in the present case occurrence had taken place on 8.6.2001 and the petitioner has already suffered protracted trial, therefore, this Court should reduce the sentence adequately. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that petitioner has not committed any offence, thereafter.

Taking these submissions of counsel for the petitioner into consideration, sentence awarded by the two Courts below is reduced to nine months rigorous imprisonment. However, the sentence of fine is maintained.

With the observations made above, the present petition is disposed off.