Dharampal Singh vs State of Punjab

Dr. Sarojnei Saksena, J.

Petitioner Dharampal Singh was convicted under Sections 304A, 279, 337, 338 and 427 I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years

with a fine of Rs. 1,000/ in default; R.I for two months, 6 months on two counts, one year and two months respectively on 9.6.1987. He preferred

Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 1987 against his aforementioned conviction and sentence before the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur which was

dismissed on 5.9.1987. Hence this revision.

The prosecution case was that on 28.9.1985 the petitioner was driving Punjab Roadways Bus bearing registration No. PBA 6709 of Amritsar

Depot in a rash and negligent manner. At about 3.30 p.m. he dashed his bus against the Maruti Van bearing registration No. DID 1398. This

Maruti Van was being driven by Kanshi Ram. Ravinder Nath, Ms. Meera, Mrs. Sujata, Ms. Gauri Nath and Rahul were travelling in this Van. Due

to this accident driver Kanshi Ram, Ravinder Nath and Ms. Meera died on the spot. The other 3 persons received severe injuries. They were

removed to the Hospital by the petitioner and his conductor. The Van was badly smashed.

The accusedpetitioner denied the charge. His plea was that the Maruti Van while overtaking a truck dashed against the bus. He examined two

witnesses in defence. The trial Court believing the prosecution evidence found him guilty of the aforementioned offences and convicted and

sentenced him accordingly. His defence plea was not found reliable.

The appellate Court confirming the findings of the trial Court held that this accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the

petitioner. Thus confirming, the conviction and sentence, the appeal was dismissed.

The petitioner''s learned Counsel contends that the petitioner is in Government job. In case, jail sentence is awarded to him, he will lose his job.

Moreover, this accident took place because of contributory negligence of the driver of the Maruti Van. After the accident, the petitioner alongwith

his Conductor removed the three injured persons to the Hospital immediately. He is a first offender. On these counts, the learned Counsel submits

that benefit of probation be given to the petitioner. He has relied on Aitha Chander Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1982 CAR 5 (SC) and

Gobind Ram v. The State of Haryana, 1978 Chandigarh Law Reporter 255.

The respondent''s learned Counsel relying on Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1980 Punjab Law Reporter 191 (SC), Gurcharan Singh v. State

of Punjab, 1983(1) Recent Criminal Reports 1 and Court on its motion v. Gurdev Singh, 1987(1) Recent Criminal Reports 351, contended that in

this accident three lives were lost and three persons sustained severe injuries. Therefore, no leniency in the quantum of sentence should be shown

to the petitioner. Dangerous drivers should be kept off the road. In such offences, sentence of imprisonment and its severity held out a deterrent

effect on the persons who drive their vehicles in a rash and negligent manner. He further submits that this is not a case of contributory negligence.

Both the Courts below have negatived this defence.

The facts of Gobind Ram and Aitha Chander Rao''s case (supra) are distinguishable. Aitha Chander Rao''s case was a case of contributory

negligence. In Gobind Ram''s case considering the age, character and antecedents as well as the circumstances of the case, accused was released

on probation under Section 360 Cr.P.C., but in the present case due to this accident three persons have breathed their last on the spot. Three

other persons sustained severe injuries. Such offences are on the increase by leaps and bounds. Therefore in Gurcharan Singh''s case (supra) it

was directed that in such cases provisions of Sections 360 and 361 Cr.P.C. are to be applied in very rare and exceptional circumstances. Their

Lordships of the Supreme Court in Rattan Singh''s case (supra) have reiterated that in cases of rash and negligent driving resulting in fatal accident,

no compassion can be shown. Sentencing is a policy of correction. In Gurdev Singh''s case (supra), it is observed that Indian Transport is acquiring

a menacing reputation. Such dangerous drivers should be kept off the road and thus in all those cases sentence was upheld.

In this case, it is evident from the lower Courts judgments that it is not a case of contributory negligence. The petitioner was driving his bus

rashly and negligently. He dashed his bus against the Maruti van resulting in death of three persons on the sport and causing severe injuries to three

other persons. The Van was also smashed badly. No doubt the petitioner is in Govt. job and if he undergoes imprisonment, he may lose his job, he

is a first offender and immediately after the accident he removed the injured persons to the Hospital in a Matador, but these are not mitigating

circumstances. On these counts, leniency of releasing him on probation cannot be shown.

There is no merit in this Cr. Revision and it is dismissed. Conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner on all counts are hereby affirmed.

He shall surrender to bail bonds to undergo the remaining sentence.