Surinder Kumar vs State of Punjab

M.L. Singhal, J.

Surinder Kumar accused (petitioner herein) was tried by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalandhar in case FIR No. 32 dated 22.2.84 under section 304A/338/279 of the Indian Penal Code of PS Division No. 6, Jalandhar for having driven Punjab Roadways bus No. PJG2508 belonging to Punjab Roadways Jalandhar (II) on 22.2.1984 on a Highway so rashly and negligently as to endanger human life and while rashly and negligenntly driving the said bus on that Highway, he dashed that bus against Daulat Ram @ Dolti and Ram Murat causing them injuries and the death of Ram Murat on the spot. Trial ended in his conviction and sentence under section 304A Indian Penal Code to rigorous imprisonment for one year vide order dated 20.4.87 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalandhar.

His appeal to the Court of Sessions failed so far as conviction is concerned. It succeeded partially so far as sentence is concerned and the sentence was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 8 months.

I have heard learned Assistant Advocate General for the State of Punjab and have gone through the record.

Prosecution case in brief in that Bachu Lal PW1 was working in Indonesian Company at Jalandhar since the year 1971. He is UPite. Other people from his neighbouring villages had also been at Jalandhar to eke out their living. Similarly, his relation Ram Murat hailing from district Jaunpur (UP) was also at Jalandhar to eke out his living. He was residing in Bhargav Camp Jalandhar. On 22.2.84 at about 7 PM, there was brilliant electric light burning on the road. He and Ram Murat were coming on separate cycles to their houses from the side of Jalandhar City. Daulat Ram @ Dolti and his relation Gurpal son of Jagat Pal, whose name he came to know afterwards, were coming behind them on separate cycles on their left hand side. When they reached in front of the country liquor vend Abadpura, bus No. PJG2508 came from Nakodar side being driven by Surinder Kumar accused resident of village Barra PS Sirhind. Bus belonged to Punjab Roadways Depot Jalandhar (II). It was being driven rashly and negligently and at fast speed by its driver towards Jalandhar City side. Steering of the bus was out of his control. Seeing the bus out of control of the driver, Bachu Lal moved towards the kacha berm of the road on his left hand side. Surinder Kumar brought that bus on his right hand side i.e. wrong side and rammed that bus into Daulat Ram. Ramming of the bus resulted into the smashing of the cycle being pedalled by Ram Murat and he suffered multiple injuries on the head. He died at the spot. Cycle being pedalled by Daulat Ram also smashed and he too sustained multiple injuries. Surinder Kumar sped away with bus. Gurpal PW was left at the spot to guard the dead body and preserve the scene of occurrence. Bachu Lal followed that bus in a separate car which he got into, on the way. Surinder Kumar driver was caught hold of along with the bus on the link road in Milk Bar Chowk. Surinder Kumar Driver was under the influence of liquor. Bachu Lal made statement Ex.PE which led to the registration of case FIR No. 32 (ibid) against the accused. After investigation, Surinder Kumar was challaned. He was tried under section 304A Indian Penal Code by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalandhar who found the charge proved, convicted and sentenced him thereunder as indicated above.

Not satisfied with the order of conviction/sentence passed by the two courts below, Surinder Kumar has not relented and has come up in revision to this court. So far as the identity of Surinder Kumar is concerned that stands established. It was he who was driving that bus at the relevant time. Ajit Singh Yard Master, Punjab Roadways Jalandhar (II) PW2 stated that as per yard register, on 22.2.84, on bus No. PJG2508 accused was deputed as driver. It was bus deputed specially for taking barat from Tajpur to Boparai. He had known this driver personally. Ex.PC is true copy of the relevant entry of the yard register. It was special booking case. He stated that the yard register is maintained in the regular discharge of duty in the yard. Bachu Lal PW3 has given an eye witness account of the accident. He stated that Surinder Kumar was driving the illfated bus on 22.2.84 at about 77.30 PM when accident took place. Ram Murat died at the spot. Daulat Ram also sustained injuries as a result of the impact. Accused sped away the bus. A car came form behind and they chased this bus in that car and overtook the bus near Milk Bar Chowk. Surinder Kumar was caught hold of. He was handed over to the police of PS Division No. 6 which came there patrolling. He stated that 2 CRPF personnel accompanied them in that car for apprehending the accused. Accused was made to drive the bus upto the police station. Police met them near "Gurdwara" where the accused was handed over to them. Daulat Ram PW4 did not support the prosecution case. Baldev Singh DW1 stated that day, he was on duty in diesel pump in Pujab Roadways depot Jalandhar (II). He brought with him the record conntaining entries with regard to diesel being taken by the buses from that diesel pump. Entries were made serialwise with regard to supply of diesel to the buses. Against the relevant entry, the signatures of the concerned driver were taken. Against entry relating to the supply of diesel to bus No PJG2508 at 7.25 PM, there are the signatures of Surinder Kumar. Diesel statement is Ex.D1. The question that arises is whether from the statement of this witness, we can say that the driver was not apprehended on the way by Bachu Lal by setting car after him. So far as Baldev Singh DW1 is concerned, he cannot be believed as statement Ex.D1 does not bear the signatures or attestation of any officer of Punjab Roadways depot Jalandhar (II). It is on a loose paper. It is an isolated paper. It does not bear any page number. Statement Ex.D1 appears to have been fabricated with a view to help Surinder Kumar. One thing is, however, certain that Surinder Kumar was driver on this bus. Had he not been driver on this bus at 77.15 PM, he would not have been able to fabricate this document at the yard at 7.25 P.M. It was suggested to HC Sham Dass that bus was not apprehended in Milk Bar Chowk and the bus had entered the yard where it took diesel. As per HC Sham Dass, bus was taken into possession at Milk Bar Chowk. If that was so, the bus did not reach the yard at all. Identity of the accused thus stands established. Accused was found smelling of alcohol by Dr. S.K. Thapar, Medical Officer who medically examined him. Visual site plan Ex.PK speaks volumes so far as the negligence of the accused is concerned. Bus was coming from Nakodar side. Why should it have been on the other side of the road where Bachu Lal etc. were pedalling their cycles. They were almost on the edge of the metalled road. At the time of the accident, they had left the metalled road and had gone on to the kacha berm of the road with a view to save themselves. In the opinion of the Bench, the accused was justifiably convicted by the two courts below of the charge under section 304A Indian Penal Code against him.

So far as the question of release of the accused on probation of good conduct is concerned, that is absolutely out of question because the negligence of the accused was culpable. Accused brought the bus on the wrong side and rammed it against Ram Murat and Daulat Ram resulting in the death of Ram Murat and injuries to Daulat Ram. Accused ought to have known that it was highway and it was meant to be used by one and all and he was not the sole user of highway. Negligence on his part, which was avoidable, snuffed out a youthful life and injuries to the other. Release of the accused on probation of good conduct could have been thought of had Ram Murat also contributed to this accident and liability for the accident could not have been fastened on the accused alone. When the benefit of the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 is not being extended to the accused, the Bench should not be understood as saying that such benefit cannot be extended to an accused at all accused of the offence under section 304A Indian Penal Code. What the Bench means to say is that provisions of this Act should be applied only discreetly and not arbitrarily. Where the accused has been negligent and the deceased was also negligent and he contributed to the negligence which gave rise to accident, accused should be dealt with leniently. It was observed by a Bench of this court in Baljeet Singh v. State of Punjab, 1995(3) RCR 361 that "if the circumstances were not of very serious nature, the accused could be granted the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. In the present case, the statement of PW4 does not attribute total negligence to the driver. He was the only eye witness on whose statement the case was registered against the petitioner. Seriousness of the offence and the conduct of the accused and the likelihood of his repeating the offence are basic considerations which normally weigh with the court while granting or refusing such benefit to the accused." Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not thought expedient to release the petitioner on probation of good conduct. Sentence imposed should, however, be slashed as the offence took place in the year 1984. 14 years have gone by since then. This criminal trial has been hanging on the head of the accused like Damocle''s sword. So, the sentence is slashed to 6 months rigorous imprisonment.

For the reasons given above, this revision partially succeeds so far as sentence goes and is accepted to this extent. As regards conviction, it is dismissed.

Revision partly allowed.