Naresh Kumar vs U.T. Chandigarh

A.S. Nehra, J.—The petitioner was convicted u/s 304A, 337 I.P.C. by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for three months. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 20.5.1986 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. Hence this revision.

The facts of the case in brief are as under:

On 21.2.1982, at about 12.00 noon, Anil Goel, PW 11 was going on his scooter No. HRA 1016 from Industrial Area to Grain Market to meet his relation Sushil Kumar. Ahead of him, Ranjit Singh, deceased was going on his cycle, Sapna, deceased was sitting on the carrier of the cycle. It is alleged that at the crossing, when the scooter was taking turn for going to the Grain Market, Truck CHW 9801, being driven by the accused, came at fast speed from back. The truck hit the scooter. As a result of it, Anil Kumar Goel, PW 11 fell down. The truck went out of control. It hit the cyclist going ahead and thereafter overturned. Both Ranjit Singh and Sapna died. The police reached the spot. The injured were taken to the hospital in a car. The statement Ex.PA of Anil Kumar Goel was recorded, on the basis of which formal FIR was recorded. It was alleged by the prosecution that the occurrence was witnessed by PW 3 Labh Singh and PW 6 Rattan Singh.

In support of its case, the prosecution has examined Naurang Singh PW 1, Constable Hari Singh, PW 2, Labh Singh, PW 3, Ashok Kumar PW 4, Dr. U.S. Bansal, PW 5, Rattan Singh, PW 6, Tek Chand, PW 7, Constable Ram Gopal, PW 8, Constable Jagat Ram, PW 9, Ashok Kumar, PW 10, Anil Kumar Goel, PW 11, Inspector Tirlok Singh Bedi, PW 12, and Dr. Inderjit Dewan, PW 13.

Statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code in which he denied the allegations of the prosecution in toto. He has admitted in his statement that his truck was taken into possession by the police. He also stated that on that day, he was coming from the side of Tribune Chowk after getting his vehicle checked from the Traffic Staff at the speed of 30/35 K.M. per hour; that when he reached near the light, a scooterist came in between the road and he tried to save him and as such his truck turned turtle. He further stated that he did not have any knowledge whether the cyclist was involved in the accident.

The ocular evidence consists of the statements of Labh Singh, PW 3, Rattan Singh, PW 6 and Anil Goyal, PW 11. Labh Singh and Anil Goyal have fully corroborated the prosecution case. Rattan Singh did not support the prosecution case and he was declared hostile. The prosecution story finds further corroboration from the testimony of Naurang Singh, PW 1 who mechanically tested the scooter and the truck. Constable Hari Singh photographed the spot and he duly proved the photographs (Ex. P-12 to P-22) and the negatives (Ex. P-1 to P-11). Ashok Kumar, PW 4 is a formal witness and he identified the dead bodies of Sapna and Ranjit Singh. He also signed the inquest report, Ex. PA. Dr. U.S. Bansal PW 5 and Inderjit Dewan, PW 13 conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead bodies of Sapna and Ranjit Singh. Tek Chand, PW 7 also identified the dead body of the deceased. Constable Jagat Ram, PW 9 reached at the spot immediately after the accident and he moved the injured to the hospital in a car. Ashok Kimar, PW 10, happens to be the owner of the truck and he produced the permit, log book, R.C. and one affidavit (Ex. P-l to P-3) which were taken into possession by the Investigating Officer vide recovery memo Ex. PW 9/A.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that there were three eye witnesses to the occurrence; that out of the three, Rattan Singh PW 6 has not supported prosecution; that PW 3 Labh Singh admitted in cross-examination that he has appeared for the police in two cases. So, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the statement of Labh Singh, PW 3 cannot be relied upon. He has further contended that Labh Singh has stated that the scooterist was to take a turn towards left but all of a sudden, took a turn towards right. So he contended that the defence version be believed that the accident took place for the fault of the scooter driver. I do not agree with his contention. The statement of Labh Singh PW 3 cannot be discarded on the ground that he has appeared for the police in 2/3 cases. Labh Singh PW 3 had no motive to depose against the petitioner. He had no motive to let go the real culprit and to depose against the accused.

The second witness examined in the present case is Anil Kumar Goel, PW 11 who has corroborated the prosecution evidence in his examination-in-chief. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that his witness did not see the occurrence. I do not agree with this contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. PW 11 lodged the FIR and in the FIR he has mentioned the details how he saw the accident. PW 11 stated in the Court that the cyclist was going ahead of him on the main road; that he took a turn; that the truck hit him from the back and he fell down and that, thereafter, he noticed the cyclist on the ground and the truck overturned, this statement when taken as a whole, shows that the cyclist fell down as a result of accident with the truck and that the truck hit the scooter from the back and also hit the cyclist going ahead of the scooter and thereafter got overturned. The above facts clearly lead to the fact that the truck was being driven in a rash manner on the crossing. The above facts also belie the defence version to the effect that the cyclist struck with the della of the truck at its back.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, since the petitioner had no ill-will or enmity with the deceased, therefore, the petitioner may be released on probation. In support of his argument he has relied upon Mahavir Parshad v. State of Haryana 1992 (1) RCR 499 and Khem Chand v. The State of Haryana 1987 (2) RCR 446 . Both the above-mentioned cases were decided by single Bench of this Court and in both the cases, one person each had died. The Supreme Court in Rattan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, laid down that in a case u/s 304A Indian Penal Code, the sentence of two years, rigorous imprisonment was not excessive and the benefit of probation was not granted to Rattan Singh petitioner in that case. In the present case, two lives have been lost and the petitioner ran away from the spot, which itself is sufficient to disallow, the benefit of probation to the petitioner. The sentence imposed by the Trial Court be held to be excessive.

In view of the above-mentioned discussion, there is no force in the revision petition and the same is dismissed.