Ranjit Singh vs State of Haryana

K.S. Bhalla, J.

An accident took place on 26.9.1979 at 7.15 a.m. near Octroi post along DelhiMathura road as a result of which a boy aged 4 years named Prem was killed instantaneously. Truck No. HRB 8661 which was coming from the side of Delhi and proceeding towards Mathura at great speed was involved in that accident. PW Govardhan who was coming back after answering call of nature by the side of canal and PW Nanak Chand who was standing by the side of the road had witnessed the occurrence, according to whom the truck was being driven rashly and negligently. After the accident the truck stopped for a while and then the driver of the truck i.e. petitioner, Ranjit Singh sped away towards Mathura. Fortunately a tourist bus came from the side of Delhi immediately thereafter, PW Ramesh Ahuja got into that bus and chased the truck which was being driven away with an idea to escape. After covering some distance truck was stopped near a petrol pump of Kirpa Ram and driver concealed himself in a Dhaba. Ramesh Ahuja having noticed truck No. HRB8661 parked there got down and located the driver and then brought the truck as well as driver to the spot. Case was registered against Ranjit Singh petitioner for crushing the boy under the truck and thus making him responsible for causing death by negligence punishable under section 304A of the India Penal Code on the statement of PW Goverdhan. The truck was taken into possession by the police, its driver Ranjit Singh was apprehended and after performing the necessary formalities with regard to the investigation of the case, he was challaned.

On trial, Magistrate, vide his judgment dated 7/9.11.1983 convicted accused Ranjit Singh under section 304A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year as well as to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/, in default of payment of which fine he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months. he was also convicted under section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months with direction that substantive sentences shall run occurrently. Ranjit Singh preferred appeal which, vide judgment dated 14.3.1985 of Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, resulted in confirmation of convictions and sentences and the same was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved by the said decisions of the Courts below, present revision petition was preferred on behalf of petitioner Ranjit Singh.

After hearing the parties'' counsel, I do find any illegality, incorrectness or impropriety in the findings of the trial Court or lower Appellate Court. Occurrence took place during day time and it as witnessed by two independent persons namely Govardhan and Nanak Chand besides many other persons who were present by the road side. It is admitted in the grounds of revision itself that the road in question is full of traffic. Both these witnesses who had no animus whatsoever against the accused have consistently stated that the truck in question was being driven at great speed. It is clear from the plan incorporated in the inquest report Exhibit PF that the dead body of the child was lying on one side of the road. Even otherwise drivers of such vehicles are required to keep controllable speed and take requisite care and caution. Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code has made it penal for the person who drives any vehicle or rides on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause injury to any other person. In view of the same, question of contributory negligence on the part of the victim does not arise.

Contention with regard to the identity of the person involved in the accident too is devoid of any force. Govardhan (PW4) has clearly stated that truck No. HRB8661 came with great speed from the side of Delhi and the same was being driven by Ranjit Singh accused present in Court. Nanak Chand (PW 6) has stated in unequivocal terms that he heard noise to the effect that an accident had been done by truck No. 8661. These contentions of theirs have not been effectively challenged in crossexamination. It has also come in evidence that Ramesh Ahuja chased the truck in question in a bus and located the same soon thereafter parked near petrol pump of Kirpa Ram. It was found to be identified with the help of its registration number which was being announced at the scene of occurrence immediately after the accident. He also found that its driver had concealed himself inside the Dhaba. He successfully brought the truck along with the driver to the scene of the accident. Unless Ranjit Singh was responsible for the accident, Ramesh Ahuja by himself could not have succeeded taking him to the place of occurrence. It is not disputed either by the accused that he was driver of truck No. HRB8661, I, therefore, do not find any reason to come to a different conclusion with regard to involvement of the vehicle in question in the accident.

Dr. R.P. Gupta (PW1) who performed post mortem on the dead body of Prem has clearly stated that his skull and brain were crushed and lacerated. He has also opined that the injuries were ante mortem and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The doctor has added that the death was instantaneous. On the basis of that data it could easily be concluded that the death was caused on account of alleged accident and the child Prem was run over by a heavy vehicle like truck.

For the foregoing reasons, I see no merit in this revision petition so as to alter conviction under section 304A of the Indian Penal Code. The said provision of law, however, overlaps the offence under section 279 of the said Code and once death is caused by a rash or negligent act of driving irresponsibly on public way, offence under section 304A of the said Code becomes an aggravated form of the latter offence under section 279 of the Code. Conviction and sentence of the petitioner under section 279 of the Indian Penal Code are thus superfluous and could not have been ordered. The same, accordingly, is set aside. Taking into consideration the various facts and circumstances of the case including that petitioner Ranjit Singh is facing agony of a criminal trial for the last more than eight years, his sentence of imprisonment is reduced to six months rigorous imprisonment only. But for the modification regarding sentence, the revision petition is dismissed.