Rattan Lal vs State of Punjab

Nirmaljit Kaur, J.—This is a revision petition against the judgement dated 30.01.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar upholding the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner under Sections 279, 337 read Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code vide judgement/order dated 15.05.2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Anandpur Sahib.

As per the facts as recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge that the case advanced by the prosecution are that on 11.0.199, one Lekh Ram son of Shanker Singh Rajpoot resident of Village Balorh, Police Station Boranj, District Hamirpur made a statement to the police that he is working as Teacher and on 11.08.1998 at about 10.30 am, he along with his daughter Veena Kumari were going to Chandigarh for her interview and they were travelling in Bus No. HP 20 0669. The Bus was being driven by Sohan Singh and it belonged to Una Bus Depot. He stated that he and his daughter Veena Kumari were sitting on his right hand and various other passengers were also travelling in the same bus. When the bus reached near Kalyanpur Pacca main road, leading from Ropar to Nangal, it was 12.45 pm. At that time, one truck bearing No. HIB 2713 came from the Kiratpur Sahib side which was being driven by a driver who had tied a parna on his head. The said truck was being driven in a very rash and negligent speed and it hit against the side back portion of the bus, as a result of which, the arm of Veena Kumari was cut and the same fell down on the road side. She suffered various injuries on her person and died on the spot in the bus itself. At a small distance, the truck driver stopped the truck and then he ran away from the spot leaving the truck there. Veena Kumari was taken to Civil Hospital, Anandpur Sahib, where the post mortem of the dead body was done. The complainant stated that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent act of the truck driver. After recording his statement, the FIR was registered. The investigations were conducted, during which the accused was arrested, the truck and the bus were taken in custody, there mechanical tests were also got done, site plan was prepared, inquest report was also drawn, photographs of the site were taken, the post mortem report was obtained from Civil Hospital, Anandpur Sahib and after completion of the investigations, the challan was presented in the court for the trial of the accused.

The trial was conducted. Evidence was led by the prosecution. The statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was also recorded. In his defence, the accused has examined Ramesh Kumar, Clerk in Himachal Pradesh Ex Service Men Corporation, Camp Office District Bilaspur as DW1 and also proved the documents Ex.D1 and Ex D1/A to show that the truck in question was hired by the Union and Vijay Kumar was the driver of the truck at that time and not the present petitioner. It was stated by the petitioner/accused that he was only owner of the truck. The trial Court disbelieved the evidence led by the petitioner/accused and held him guilty for offence under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of IPC and convicted as well as sentenced him to undergo RI for four months u/s 279 IPC, to undergone RI for two months u/s 337 IPC and to undergo RI for two years u/s 304A IPC with a fine of Rs. 500, Rs. 250 and Rs. 1000/-respectively under each of the Sections and further to under go RI for one month, 15 days and two months respectively in default of the payment of the fine.

Aggrieved with the aforesaid judgement/order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge which was also dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition.

While challenging the judgements of both the Courts below, the learned Counsel for the petitioner raised his first arguments that the petitioner was only owner of the truck in question and not a driver of the truck at the time of accident. It was further argued that the Additional Sessions Judge has failed to take into account that as per the prosecution evidence, the truck driver was wearing a Parna and that the truck driver could not be identified by Bus driver i.e. Sohan Singh, who was examined as PW2. It was further argued that none of the eye witness identified the petitioner. PW-3 Babu Ram, who was one of the injured and eye witness also turned hostile. Further, evidence of DW-1 as well as the document Ex D-1 produced by DW-1 proves beyond an iota of doubt that the truck in question was being driven by Vijay Kumar who took the truck from the Truck Union on the date in question.

It was also argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that PW1 Lekh Ram was not an eye witness and was not present at the spot. It was further argued that this fact is evident as there are discrepancies in his statement made in the criminal case as well as in the statement made before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. In the statement made before the trial court, PW1 stated that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the driver of the truck, whereas, in the statement made before the Tribunal, he stated that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the drivers of both the Bus and Truck. Further, it has been duly recorded in the order passed by the Tribunal that the parents reached the hospital as soon as they came to know about the accident. As such, PW-1, being the father of the deceased was obviously not present at the spot. The story put forward by Lekh Ram -PW1 is full of doubts. Thus, the factual position is contrary to the Statement of PW-1. As such, no reliance should have been placed on the statement of PW-1.

The arguments raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner have been duly dealt with by the Additional Sessions Judge, in para 11 of the judgement which reads as under:

From all the above circumstances on the record, it can be well inferred that own conduct of Rattan Lal is quite doubtful and, had Vijay Kumar was actually driving the truck, Rattan Lal could have been taken this defence at the very early stage when he surrendered before the Police and applied for bail or when he applied for taking the truck on sapurdari or when the witnesses of the prosecution were being recorded or when his statement under Sections 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in the Court. On all these occasions, the accused remained silent and at the last end of the case, he examined Ramesh Kumar son of Rasila Ram as DW-1, who produced one G.R. Slip Ex D-1 and he also stated that Vijay Kumar had taken out the truck from their Corporation and he had signed the G.R. Slip under his signatures. It appears that this evidence has been fabricated by the accused at the subsequent stage. Had this evidence was available with the accused earlier, what was the reason that he kept concealed the same through out the proceedings of the case or at the investigation stage as well as at the trial stage. As such, the benefit of EX.D1 cannot be given to the accused appellant.

In the present revision petition also, the petitioner has relied heavily on the judgement rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to show that the present petitioner was not involved in the accident and PW1 was never present at the place of accident. However, nothing has been pointed to show that PW-1 was not present at the time of the accident. Simply recording by the MACT that the parents of the deceased were informed about the accident and that they rushed to the place of the accident is not enough to show that that the word ''parents'' would include PW1 as well. In any case, no other evidence to support that the petitioner was not driving the truck has been produced on record. No written statement filed before the MACT wherein a specific stand was taken by the petitioner that he was not the driver of the truck at the time of accident or that Vijay Kumar was the driver of the truck in question, has been placed on record. There is nothing to deny that the petitioner in indeed never raised the objections at any stage that he was not the driver of the truck but it was Vijay Kumar who was the driver of the truck at the time of accident.

Thus, the benefit of document Ex D-1 has rightly not been given to the petitioner. The discrepancies as pointed out by the petitioner in the statement of PW-1 are too trivial and therefore, the evidence of PW-1 cannot be completely brushed aside on the ground that PW-1 made a statement before the MACT that both the drivers of the bus and Truck were negligent. The fact remains that the part of the statement of PW1 that the driver of the truck was negligent is common to both the cases. The said truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner due to which accident took place. As a result thereof, the arm of Veena Kumari was cut and she fell on the road side and she died on the spot.

As a sequel to the aforesaid discussion, the judgement dated 30.01.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar upholding the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner under Sections 279, 337 read Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code vide judgement/order dated 15.05.2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Anandpur Sahib, is affirmed and conviction is upheld.

The petitioner has already undergone about two months sentence out of the total sentence awarded to him. The petitioner is the first offender and is the only bread winner of his family as there is no other male member in the family. Further, he is facing the agony of trial since the year 1998. The petitioner was granted bail on 24.03.2003. Thus, it will not be fair to send him back to jail after a gap of seven years.

Taking into account the totality of the facts of the present case, the ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is released on probation of good conduct for the remaining period of sentence subject to payment of compensation of Rs. 25,000/-to the claimants along with the fine already ordered by the trial Court.

Except for the above modification in the period of sentence, the present revision petition is dismissed.