Ram Partap vs State of Haryana

M.L. Singhal, J.

This is a Crl. Revision filed by petitioner (Ram Partap) against the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, dated 3.8.1998 whereby he has convicted and sentenced him (Ram Partap) to undergo R.I. for one year under Section 304A Indian Penal Code and fine of Rs. 500/ each under Section 337/279 Indian Penal Code, in default to undergo further R.I. for one month each thereby maintaining the conviction and sentence passed upon him by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon vide order dated 1821.7.1997 in case FIR 459 dated 18.6.1989 under Section 279/337/338/427/304A Indian Penal Code of PS Sadar, Gurgaon.

The prosecution case briefly stated is that on 18.6.1989, Ram Kishan son of Shiv Lal resident of village Janaula PS Pataudi was going to village Janaula from Gurgaon along with one Chhattar Singh son of Udhmi Ram on Scooter No. DEN 4005. He was driving that scooter while Chhattar Singh was on its pillion. At about 1.30 p.m. when they reached near village Garauli, Maruti van bearing No. DDV 3019 came from Pataudi side being driven rashly and negligently by accused (Ram Partap). It dashed against scooter. As a result of the impact, Ram Kishan and Chhattar Singh fell and suffered injuries. After Maruti van had dashed against scooter, it struck against a tree. Occupants of Maruti van also suffered injuries. Injured were taken to the hospital. Chhattar Singh succumbed to his injuries. Accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of Maruti van by its driver. Ram Kishan reported the matter to the police, on the basis of which, case FIR No. 459 was registered at PS Sadar, Gurgaon on 18.6.1989. Accused was charged under Section 279/337/304A Indian Penal Code. He pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. On the conclusion of the trial, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon found the charge proved against the accused and accordingly convicted and sentenced him under section 279, 337, 304A Indian Penal Code, as indicated above vide order dated 18/21.7.1997. Aggrieved from the order convicting and sentencing him dated 18/21.7.1997 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, Ram Partap went in appeal to the Court of Session where he met the same fate. Feeling that he has been unjustly convicted and sentenced by the two courts below, Ram Partap has knocked the door of this Court under Section 401 Cr.P.C. through this revision.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana and have gone through the record.

Ram Kishan PW1 stated that on 18.6.1989 at about 1.30 p.m., he along with his brother Chhattar Singh was going on scooter No. 4005 to his village. When they reached near village Garauli, Maruti van bearing No. DDV 3019 came being driven rashly, negligently and at a speed of 100 kilomters per hour. He took his scooter on the kacha berm of the road towards the left side. Still, Maruti van hit their scooter. After Maruti van had hit their scooter, Maruti van struck against a tree. Maruti van was driven by Ram Partap. Injured were taken to the hospital where his brother Chhattar Singh died. Hari Singh PW2 stated that 2 years ago he and Sube Singh had gone to village Garauli for purchasing a buffalo. It was month of "jeth". It was about 2 p.m. Ram Kumar who was peon in the school met them and they were discussing, regarding the purchase of buffalo. One Maruti van of white colour came from Pataudi side being driven in a rash and negligent manner. Said van hit scooter being driven by Ram Kishan. Chhattar Singh was on the pillion of the scooter. As a result, Ram Kishan and Chhattar Singh suffered injuries. Chhattar Singh died. Ram Partap, the driver of the Maruti van also suffered injuries. Ram Kumar corroborated the version of Hari Singh. Dr. B.B. Aggarwal, medically examined Ram Partap and Ram Kishan. He noted the injuries found by him in their respective medicolegal reports. Dr. Sushil Kumar Goel performed postmortem examination on the dead body of Chhattar Singh. ASI Sukhdev Singh investigated the case. He prepared site plan Ex. PW9/A at the spot. He got the scooter and the Maruti van mechanically tested. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ram Kishan is not an independent witness. He is the brother of the deceased. Hari Singh and Ram Kumar are the chance witnesses. They are said to be bystanders. Hari Singh PW2 admitted that Ram Kishan and Chhattar Singh are residents of his village and he is their nephew. Suffice it to say, Hari Singh and Ram Kumar have given quite a cogent explanation as to why they happened to be at the spot. Hari Singh is not their real nephew.

It was submitted that PW2 has only fabricated a story that he and Sube Singh had gone to village Garauli for purchasing a buffalo and at about 2 p.m. they were talking with Ram Kumar about the purchase of a buffalo as if there had been truth about this fact, they would have seen some buffalo. Hari Singh PW2 admitted that they did not see any buffalo. He submitted that there was a tea shop and people were available there. Prosecution depended only upon interested evidence although disinterested evidence was available. Suffice it to say, Ram Kishan and Hari Singh PWs have supported the prosecution case. Investigating Officer was not required to examine a host of witnesses during investigation. Similarly prosecution was not required to examine a host of witnesses. No infirmity could be pointed out by the learned counsel in the testimony of Ram Kumar, Ram Kishan and Hari Singh PWs. Site plan prepared by ASI Sukhdev Singh also suggests that the scooter was going on its correct side. Maruti van dashed against scooter when it was on the kacha berm of the road. Fact that Maruti van did not stop there but dashed against a tree after having dashed scooter suggests that Maruti van was being driven, rashly, negligently and at uncontrollable speed. Motor mechanic found the Maruti van in order and, therefore, it cannot be said that the accident took place because of some mechanical defect having developed suddenly in the Maruti van. In my opinion, learned Magistrate justifiably found the charge proved against the accused. While returning a verdict of guilt, he acted on evidence which is reliable and beyond the pale of criticism. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the appreciation of evidence by the learned Magistrate. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, reappraised the evidence. On reappraisal, he followed the principles governing appreciation of evidence in criminal cases. He justifiably found the conviction in order.

On going through the judgments of the two courts below, I find that the conviction was quite in order and, therefore, revision was dismissed so far as conviction is concerned. Faced with this position learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner should be released on probation of good conduct. In support of this submission, he drew my attention to Mann Parkash v. State of Haryana, 1996(1) RCR 437 were it was held that there can be no two opinions that benefit of the provisions of Sections 360 and 361 of Cr.P.C. and the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act can neither be granted as a matter of rule nor can be declined as a matter of rule in such cases. Each case must be dealt with on its own merits. In the present day when road accidents are certainly on the increase, courts will have to apply reasonable caution while granting such benefit to the accused in these cases. It was also observed that sentencing an accused is a sensitive exercise of discretion and not a routine or mechanical prescription acting on hunch. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a first offender. He has been leading a good course of conduct before. It is first lapse on his part from the path of rectitude and, therefore, he should be given one chance to reform himself so that he inculcates in him the care of a prudent and sensible driver. He drew my attention to Tarsem Singh v. State of Punjab, 1997(2) RCR 785 where the accused was let off with the sentence already undergone keeping in view that the accident is 15 years old. Keeping in view that the accused has been suffering the vagaries of criminal trial for about 9 years and criminal trial has been hanging on his head like a damoclean sword all through, I think some leniency should be shown to him towards sentence. He should not be released on probation of good conduct as spate of accidents take place daily. Drivers of heavy vehicles are required to observe greater care, caution and circumspection while driving on the highway. It is their duty to be careful about the safety of the light vehicles. Sentence imposed is reduced to RI for 6 months. Sentence of fine shall, however, remain undisturbed together with the default clause.

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

Revision dismissed.