Satbir Singh vs State of Haryana

M.L. Singhal, J.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 30.6.1980 at about 7.30 A.M. in Matador No. HYR606 Mangal Singh its driver was taking marriage party consisting of 27 persons from village Kutana towards Hansi along RohtakHisar Road. When Matador reached near Village Kharkhara Police Station, Meham truck bearing No. RJI1415 came from opposite side being driven by Satbir accused rashly and negligently. He was not sounding any horn to caution the other vehicles being plied on the road. On seeing this truck being driven at a fast speed rashly and negligently and carelessly, Mangal Singh swerved that Matador towards extreme left side of the road. Truck rammed into the Matador. Matador was being dragged to a distance of 1718 steps. As a result of this ghastly accident ten occupants of the Matador including its driver Mangal Singh died at the spot. Rest of the occupants of the Matador were grievously injured. Some body informed Police Station, Mehal telephonically regarding this ghastly and tragic accident. On receipt of telephonic message, SI Jai Chand of Police Station, Meham rushed to the spot alongwith the other police officials. At the spot, he found may persons from nearby fields having collected there. Satpal PW1, who was one of the occupants of the Matador, reported the matter to SI Jai Chand vide statement Ex.PA. On the basis of statement Ex.PA, case FIR No. 119 dated 30.6.1980 was registered at Police Station, Meham. Both the vehicles were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PC. These were mechanically tested by Hajari Lal PW 31. Post mortem examination was carried out on the dead bodies of those unfortunates, who had lost their lives in this accident. After investigation, Satbir accused was challaned under Sections 304A, 279, 337 and 338 Indian Penal Code. On the conclusion of the trial, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak found the charge under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A Indian Penal Code proved against the accused. He, accordingly, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/ or in default to further rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 304A IPC. He sentenced him to undergo RI for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/ or in default to further undergo RI for one month under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC. He ordered the sentences to run concurrently.

Satbir went in appeal to the Court of Session and thereby challenged his conviction and sentence imposed upon him by learned Magistrate vide order dated 1.9.1986.

Addl. Sessions Judge, Rohtak dismissed the appeal vide order 3.10.1987. Still not satisfied, Satbir has come in revision to this Court.

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

Satpal PW 1 and Chander Bhan PW 19 have supported the prosecution case. They had been the occupants of the illfated Matador. Satpal PW1 stated that he was one of the members of the baraat of Karambir going from village Kutana to Behlamba by this Matador. On 30.7.1980 (it should have been 30.6.1980), Matador met with an accident with truck. He stated that he cannot tell the number of the truck. He stated that he could identify the driver of the truck. He identified the driver of the truck, who was standing in Court facing trial. He stated that their Matador was being driven on the left side of the road. Truck was coming at a speed of 70 KMs per hour. Truck rammed into the Matador. As a result of the mishap, there was loss of several lives and there were injuries to many. They fell unconscious. They regained consciousness after some time.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not to blame. Driver of the Matador was to blame because he was under the influence of liquor. Satpal PW 1 stated that driver drove the Matador carelessly after having taking liquor. It was driver of the Matador, who rammed the Matador into the truck. Jage Ram PW4 has not supported the prosecution case. He has stated that he was not aware as to how the accident took place as he had gone unconscious. He was also one of the members of the marriage party travelling by that Matador. There are some other PWs who were occupants of the Matador and who sustained injuries in this accident but they have not supported the prosecution case. Chander Bhan PW 19 has stated that this accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver. He has stated that the truck was coming in a zig zag manner. He has stated that the driver of the Matador swerved the Matador to the left side with a view to avert the accident but the accident took place resulting into the loss of five lives including that of the driver. In his crossexamination, he did not relent at all and kept sticking to his guns stating that the accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver Satbir. He further stated that Satbir facing trial was driving the truck, who ran away from the spot. In his crossexamination, he stated that the driver of the Matador had not taken liquor. He denied the suggestion if the driver of the Matador had been called upon to use care and caution while driving the Matador because of his being under the influence of liquor. Driver of the Matador was subjected to post mortem examination but the doctor who performed post mortem examination nowhere stated that there was liquor in his stomach. In the post mortem report relating to the post mortem examination of Mangal Singh, the doctor found the stomach to be empty containing little gas. This shows that Satpal PW1 stated without any basis and with a view to help the driver of the truck that driver of the Matador was under the influence of liquor and that he was driving the Matador very carelessly because of influence of liquor. Chander Bhan PW19 has categorically stated that driver of the Matador had not taken any liquor and the accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver. Place of accident was photographed by Harish Kumar PW32. Snaps of the accident suggest that the accident had taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. Why should the truck have followed the Matador when the Matador had been swerved to its extreme left side. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner should have been given the benefit of doubt when most of the PWs have not supported the prosecution case at all and some of the PWs who have supported the prosecution case have extended only faint support to the case of the prosecution. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if truck was coming in a zig zag manner it could not be said that it was being driven at a fast speed. Suffice if to say, if the truck was coming in a zig zag manner that shows that driver was not in full control of the truck. It was further submitted that damage to the Matador in the front shows that driver of the Matador was not giving way to the truck and dashed its front against the truck and if the driver of the Matador had taken the Matador to the extreme left side of the road, there should have been damage to its right side. Suffice it to say, the photographs of the place of accident suggest that the truck rammed into the Matador, when Matador had been taken to its extreme left side. It was further submitted that the prosecution has not examined Investigating Officer and nonexamination of the Investigating Officer would impinge upon the truth of the prosecution case. In this case, nonexamination of the Investigating Officer cannot impinge upon the truth of the prosecution case. Investigating Officer prepared only the site plan at the spot. In the site plan, he showed the relative position of the truck visavis that of the Matador at the time of accident. If Investigating Officer had been examined, he would have stated about the relative position of the truck visavis that of a the Matador at the spot when he prepared the site plan. Nonproof of the position of the truck visavis that of the Matador shown in the site plan could have mattered if the photographer had not been examined. Examination of photographer to my mind can safely be said to be dispensing with the examination of the Investigating Officer. Harish Kumar PW30 stated that he was taken to the spot by police on 30.6.1980. He photographed the place of accident. Ex. P25 and P26 are the negatives while Ex. P27 and P28 are the positives. These photographs eloquently suggest that accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver. In my opinion, learned Magistrate justifiably found the charge proved against the accused on appreciation of evidence and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge justifiably found the charge against the accused on reappreciation of evidence.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner should have been given the benefit of the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 as he was not a previous convict. Suffice it to say, how could the petitioner be given benefit of provisions of Probation of Offenders Act or Sections 360/361 Cr.PC when the petitioner is shown to be palpably rash and negligent. Matador had been taken to the extreme left side of the road by its driver. If the truck had been driven carefully and with circumspection by its driver, it would not have gone off the road and rammed into Matador and dragged it to a distance of 1718 feet resulting in several casualties and grievous injuries to many. Release of the petitioner on probation of good conduct would be rewarding him for his criminal negligence. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court should slash the sentence keeping in view that the accident took place 20 years ago and this revision has been pending for the last 11 years and during this period, the petitioner must have suffered lot of mental pain and agony due to the pendency of this case.

Keeping in view the mental pain and agony which the petitioner must have suffered during the last 20 years because of the vagaries of this case, I think sentence imposed upon him should be slashed to some extent. So, sentence imposed upon him is slashed and brought down to one and a half years RI. Sentence imposed upon on other counts is maintained. Sentence awarded in default of payment of fine is also maintained. Sentences shall run concurrently. Subject to reduction in sentence, this revision fails and is dismissed.

Revision dismissed.