Ram Phal vs State of Haryana

M.L. Singhal, J.

Prosecution case in brief is that on 14.9.1991, Chanda Singh, Junior Engineer with the Haryana State Electricity Board at Narwana was going to Narwana City from 220 KV Sub Station, Narwana at about 12.15 PM on scooter. When he reached near the godwon of Indane Gas Agency, Narwana, fourwheeler No. HR29/3784 being driven rashly and negligently came from Narwana side. Chanda Singh apprehending collision between his scooter and the said fourwheeler tried to save himself but before he could save himself, fourwheeler collided with his scooter. As a result of the impact scooter was damaged and he received injuries. Partap Singh son of Pirthi Singh, resident of village Kheri Masani reached the spot. He witnessed the mishap. He took him to General Hospital for medical aid. It may be mentioned here that Chanda Singh also belonged to village Kheri Masani. Chanda Singh made statement to the police, on the basis of which case FIR No. 183 was registered at Police Station City, Narwana under Sections 279/338/427 of the Indian Penal Code on 14.9.1991. Identity of the driver of the offending fourwheeler became known after some time. He was arrested on 16.9.1991. After investigation, Ramphal was challaned. He was charged under Sections 279/338/427 of the Indian Penal Code by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Narwana vide order dated 9.12.1991.

On the conclusion of the trial, learned Sub Divisional Magistrate found the charge under Sections 279/338/427 of the Indian Penal Code proved against Ramphalaccused. He accordingly convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/ under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code. He sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/ under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, he ordered him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each. Out of the amount of the fine i.e. Rs. 1000/ if recovered, Rs. 600/ were ordered to be paid to the injured as compensation and the remaining amount of fine i.e. Rs. 400/ was ordered to be costs of proceedings to the State. Substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Aggrieved from this order dated 20.7.1996 passed by the learned Magistrate, Ramphal went in appeal to the Court of Session. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind concurred substantially with the judgment of the learned Magistrate. She only reduced the sentence to three months rigorous imprisonment while maintainting the sentence of fine under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code. She ordered that in default of payment of fine, he will undergo further simple imprisonment of 15 days. She modified the sentence passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code into one under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/ or in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for 15 days. Substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Still not satisfied, Rampal has come up in revision to this Court.

It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the accident took place at about 12.15 PM, while matter was reported to the Police at 3.00 PM on 14.9.1991. Name of Ramphal was incorporated on mere suspicion. His father''s name was not metioned in the First Information Report. He was not put at test identification parade. He was identified for the first time in Court. Identifying the accused for the first time in the Court by the prosecution witness is of no avail when he had not known him earlier. Suffice it to say, his identity is not in doubt at all. The factum of accident was not denied by Ramphal as is clear from the trend of cross examination of the PWs. It was suggested to Chanda Singh PW1 that fourwheeler was being driven on the left side of the road and he had received injuries because of his own fault. It was also suggested to him that accused was not driving the four wheeler in rash and negligent manner. From the trend of crossexamination, it is apparent that the accused admitted that he was driving the fourwheeler but injured received injuries because of his own fault, though the accused was driving the fourwheeler carefully and cautiously.

It was next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Partap Singh PW cannot be said to have witnessed the accident inasmuch as he has stated that he appeared at the scene after some time. Suffice it to say, Partap Singh was just coming behind. He reached the place of accident in no time. Partap Singh stated in his crossexamination that he reached that spot after one or two minutes but had witnessed the occurrence. If he was little behind and reached the spot in a minute or so, it cannot be said that he did not witness the accident. He has clearly stated that fourwheeler was being driven by accused in rash and negligent manner. It hit the scooter being driven by Chanda Singh and as a result of the impact, Chanda Singh received injuries.

It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per constable Darbara Singh scooter and fourwheeler were taken into posssession from near the Power House beyond the Canal near Dumerkha village. Godown of Indian (Indane ?) Gas Agency is at a distance of 2 kilometres from the Power House. Suffice it to say, photographs taken by Dharam Pal PW3 suggest that the accident took place near the godown of Indane Gas Agency. Place of accident was photographed on 14.9.1991. Darbara Singh PW4 is a dismissed constable. He appears to have tried to favour the accused, when other witnesses have clearly stated that scooter and the fourwheeler were taken into possession from near the godown of Indane Gas Agency, where the accident took place. Failure of the prosecution to examine the Investigating Officer could have been taken into account if the phographs had not been proved. Photographs clearly bring out that the driver of the fourwheeler was responsible for this accident.

In my opinion, appreciation of evidence by the learned Magistrate is quite proper and just. Reappraisal of the evidence by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is also quite just and proper. Learned Additional Sessions Judge justifiably found the charge under Section 279/337 of the Indian Penal Code proved against the accused.

Faced with this position, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has faced vagaries of the criminal trial for about five years in the Court of the learned Magistrate and he was eventually convicted and sentenced. He went in appeal to the Court of Session in August, 1996. His appeal was dismissed on 20.3.1998. His fate, thus, hanged in the balance for over 11/2 years before the learned Sessions Judge. He came in revision to this Court in March, 1998 and he has been facing uncertainty for the last 5 months in this Court.

It was submitted that this trial has been hanging like a Damoclean sword on his head for the last about 7 years, Court should show some leniency to him in the matter of sentence and the Court should release him on probation of good conduct.

Keeping in view that the petitioner has been suffering the vagaries of criminal trial for about 7 years and during this period, he has suffered a lot of mental agony, I think he should be released on probation of good conduct so that he may reform himself and be a careful and a cautious driver. So, the conviction is maintained. Sentence of imprisonment is modified and he is ordered to be released on probation of good conduct on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5000/ together with surety bond of the like amount to the satisfaction of C.J.M., Jind for a period of two years. During this period, he shall undertake to be of good behaviour and keep the peace. He shall pay Rs. 10,000/ as compensation to the injured for damage caused to his scooter and injuries suffered to him. Amount of fine shall be costs of proceedings to the State.

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

Revision dismissed.