Mohan Singh vs State of U.T., Chandigarh

M.L. Singhal, J.

The prosecution case in brief is that on 17.5.1990 Nazir Ahmad alongwith his brothers Saffi Ahmad and Ayub, his brothersinlaw Gulab Nabi and Israyal hired a truck bearing registration No. PBO 1143 for Rs. 1,100/ from the truck union Raipur Rani which was being driven by Mohan Singh. This truck proceeded towards Ludhiana at about 1.00 AM on 17.5.1990 after loading it with vegetables. It may be stated here that Nazir Ahmad had taken land on lease in village Ferozepur, Police Station Raipur Rani and was growing vegetables on that land and selling them at Ludhiana. He used to take vegetables in trucks to Ludhiana. All of them sat in the truck and when this truck reached the crossing of Sectors 37/36/41/42, in the meantime truck bearing No. PCI 4785 came from Mohali side. It was being driven by Chhotu in a rash and negligent manner. These trucks were being driven at fast speed. The occupants of the truck raised alarm that the speed be slowed down but the truck driver paid no heed to their alarm. Similarly Mohan Singh also did not slow down the speed of truck No. PBO 1143. The driving of the said trucks by Mohan Singh and Chhotu rashly and negligently and at fast speed gave rise to collision between the two trucks. As a result of that collision trucks turned turtle and all the occupants of the truck together with the driver of their truck i.e. Mohan Singh and conductor suffered injuries. Chhotu Ram driver of the other truck also suffered injuries. They were removed to PGI, Chandigarh for treatment. Saffi Ahmad succumbed to injuries in PGI, Chandigarh. Nazir Ahmad reported the matter to the police. In his statement, he imputed the accident to rash, negligent, careless and fast driving of the trucks of both the drivers of the truck. Case FIR No. 128 dated 17.5.1990 was registered under Sections 279/337/338/304A of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sector 39, Chandigarh. After investigation, accused Mohan Singh and Chhotu were challaned.

They were charged under Sections 279/338/304A of the Indian Penal Code by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh vide order dated 5.2.1991. They pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.

On the conclusion of the trial, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh found the charge under Sections 279/337/304A of the Indian Penal Code proved against both the accused. He convicted them thereunder and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months each under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code. He sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code. He sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code. He ordered the substantive sentences to run concurrently.

Aggrieved from their conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 14.6.1995, they went in separate criminal appeals to the Court of Session. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh dismissed both the appeals and maintained the conviction and sentence awarded to them by the learned Magistrate.

Mohan Singh and Chhotupetitioners have come in separate revisions to this Court whereby they have challenged their conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Magistrate and maintained by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

I will dispose of both these criminal revisions through this common judgment as one and the same accident has given rise to these revisions.

Nazir Ahmad PW1 stated that on 17.5.1990 he hired truck No. PBO 1143 for taking vegetables to Ludhiana from his village Ferozepur, District Ambala. He alongwith his brother Saffi Ahmad sat in the front cabin of the truck and 5 other persons sat on the back portion of the truck. Mohan Singh was driving that truck and when they reached near the crossing of Sectors 36/37/41/42 he saw truck No. PCI4785 coming from the side of Mohali at the speed of 60/70 kilometres per hour. Both the trucks collided with each other. He stated that both the trucks were being driven by their drivers at very fast speed. They lost control over their trucks and struck them against each other. Trucks turned turtle. All the occupants of their truck received injuries. Saffi Ahmad succumbed to his injuries in the PGI. He categorically sated that both the drivers were rash and negligent while driving their trucks. Nazir Ahmad is quite objective in his statement. If he had any soft corner for Mohan Singh, he could have stated that Chhotu was rash and negligent and it was rashness and negligence on his part that gave rise to this accident.

It was contended by the learned counsel for Mohan Singh that the accident took place because of the rashness and negligent driving of the truck by Chhotu. In support of this submission, he submitted that Mohan Singh had filed claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal against Chhotu and others and that claim petition was allowed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal holding that Chhotu was rash and negligent while driving the truck. Suffice it to say, the finding of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is not binding on the Criminal Court. In this case Mohan Singh has pleaded that the accident took place due to negligence of Chhotu while Chhotu has pleaded that the accident took place due to the negligence of Mohan Singh. The report of the motor mechanic suggests that both the truck drivers were rash and negligent and driving at uncontrollable speed as the major portion of the trucks was damaged. Photographs also suggest that rash and negligent driving of both the trucks brought about collision between them and due to the impact vegetables lying in the truck were scattered.

It was submitted that 5/6 persons were travelling in truck No. PBO 1143 but only Nazir Ahmad was examined. It was submitted that if other witnesses had also been examined, they could have thrown more light on the cause of accident. Suffice it to say, eye witness account given by Nazir Ahmad is quite vivid and categoric. It was submitted that if Mohan Singh had been negligent someone occupying truck being driven by Chhotu would also have received injuries. Suffice it to say, Nazir Ahmad has stated that both of them were rash and negligent and driving respective trucks rashly and negligently and at uncontrollable speed.

Learned counsel for Chhotu submitted that Nazir Ahmad PW stated in cross examination that it is wrong to suggest that accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of accused Chhotu. It was submitted that this means that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Mohan Singh. Suffice it to say, Nazir Ahmad has imputed rash and negligent driving to both the petitioners.

I have gone through the judgment of the learned Magistrate. I do not find any misappreciation of evidence on his part. I have gone through the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. I do not find any misappreciation of evidence by him. Conclusions of fact arrived at by them are based on tangible, concrete and inspiring evidence. In my opinion, Mohan Singh and Chhotu were justifiably convicted under Sections 279/337 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code.

Faced with this position, learned counsel for Mohan Singh and Chhotu submitted that accident took place in the year, 1990. They were challaned in the year 1990. They reminded in trial before the learned Magistrate for 5 years where they were convicted and sentenced. They went in appeal to the Court of Sessions in the year 1995 which unfortunately was dismissed in 1999. They thus remained in appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, for about 4 years. They have thus been suffering the vagaries of this criminal trial for the last 9 years. During the period of 9 years, criminal trial has been hanging on their head like a damoclean sword. It was submitted that they should be released on probation of good conduct. Suffice it to say, they cannot be released on probation of good conduct as they were going on busy highway. While going on a busy highway drivers of heavy vehicles should be extracareful, cautious and circumspect. Rash and negligent driving of the trucks by them resulted in loss of one human life and injuries to others. Release on probation of good conduct is some time taken as let off and not in the spirit in which the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 was enacted and Sections 360/361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were incorporated.

Keeping, however, in view that they have been facing the vagaries of the criminal trial for the last 9 years, I slash the sentence and bring it down. So, the sentence imposed upon the petitioners Mohan Singh and Chhotu is slashed and brought down to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months each under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code. In addition each of them will pay fine of Rs. 1000/ or in default of payment of fine, he will further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Amount of fine shall be paid to the heirs of the deceased. Sentence of imprisonment imposed upon them under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code in maintained.

Subject to this reduction/variation in sentence, these revisions fail and are dismissed.

Revisions dismissed.