Sumer Chand vs State of Punjab

Rekha Mittal, J.—The present petition lays challenge to the judgment dated 20.4.2013 passed by the Sessions Judge, Patiala whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence for offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") has been dismissed and the findings recorded by the learned trial court have been affirmed.

As per allegations, the rash and negligent driving of truck bearing Registration No. HP-18B-0251 by the petitioner resulted in an accident leading to death of Paramjit Singh and Kamaljit Singh travelling in car bearing Registration No. PB-59-A-0068 Mohindra Logan on the fateful day of 29.5.2011. The prosecution examined Mandeep Singh, the complainant and an eye witness to the occurrence and he reiterated the version given to the police as first information report.

Counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of site of two vehicles involved in the accident, depicted in the photographs clicked by Zora Singh, Photographer PW4, the version given by the complainant becomes doubtful that the petitioner is the author of the accident, thus liable to be condemned for causing accident.

I have appreciated the contention raised by counsel for the petitioner in the light of findings recorded by the courts below and find no reason to interfere in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction.

Mandeep Singh, an eye witness to the occurrence gave a vivid and detailed account of the manner in which the occurrence in question took place. Counsel has not pointed out any illegality in appreciation of his evidence by the courts below. The photographs cannot be made the basis for holding that the driver of the offending vehicle is not responsible for causing the accident, for the simple reason that when two vehicles collide, the drivers would invariably try to divert the vehicles to avoid collision. This apart, in view of the speed at which the vehicles are running and as a result of impact of collision they may swerve and may not remain positioned at the site where they were immediately before accident. In this view of the matter, I find myself unable to accept submissions made by counsel that there is an error much less illegality in the impugned judgments as would call for interference.

The trial court has shown extraordinary leniency in awarding sentence for the proven crime. The petitioner was awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for commission of offence punishable u/s 304A IPC despite the fact that rash and negligent driving on the part of the petitioner resulted into two deaths. There are no mitigating circumstances to interfere in the quantum of sentence.

For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is dismissed in limine.