The High Court criminal revision dismissed the appeal but modified the sentence, granting probation to the petitioner instead of jail time and directing compensation to the deceased's heirs.
Petitioner to be released on probation on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/ with one surety for one year and deposit Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the deceased's heirs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
Crl. Revision No.191 of 2001.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Revision No.191 of 2001. DECIDED ON : 13.2.2009
Nakli Ram
Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab.
Respondent.
CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH
Present: Mr. Karambir Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Manjari Nehru Kaul, DAG,Punjab.
JORA SINGH,J.
Nakli Ram-petitioner has filed this revision against the judgment dated 7.2.2001, whereby appeal filed by him against the judgment/order dated 5.7.1999 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rupnagar was dismissed.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 21.2.1996 Up Nangal Dam Pilot i.e. good train was going to Kiratpur Sahib. Shiv Raj Singh was driver whereas Lala Ram was the assistant driver. Wagon was not attached with the goods train. Roshan Lal guard on the said train was sitting in the Engine. At About 2.20 A.M. train was near Gate No. C-50A, they noticed that gate is lying open. A truck No. PB 11A 7790 came from Ropar-Nagal road and was going towards
2
Crl. Revision No.191 of 2001.
Gujrat Ambuja factory.Train driver to cross the railway line but in the meantime, goods train came and struck against the truck. Some part of the truck was struck with engine and the remaining part of the truck fell into Bhakra main canal. In the accident, Karnail Singh driver of the truck received injuries. Sohan Singh, who was cleaner had drowned in the Bhakra main canal. Dead body was recovered from the Bhakra on 9.3.1996. Inquest report was prepared. Dead body was sent to Civil Hospital for post mortem examination. On receipt of information regarding accident, police party headed by ASI Balwinder Singh had gone to the spot. Nakli Ram was the gateman on gate No.C 50A. Accident was due to negligence of Nakli Ram, who had left the gate open. Case under Section 175 of the Railway Act was registered against Nakli Ram.
After the completion of investigation, challan was presented.
After hearing Public Prosecutor for the State and defence counsel for the accused, trial Court found that a prima facie case under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 175 of the Railway Act was made out, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses.
After the close of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to explain the allegations levelled against him. He denied all the allegations
Crl. Revision No.191 of 2001. 3
and claimed to be innocent. Defence version of the accused was that accident was due to negligence of truck driver. Gate No.C 50-A was locked but truck driver had struck the truck against the gate. In the meantime, Railway engine came and struck against the truck.
No defence was led.
After hearing learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the defence counsel and also from the perusal of the records, learned trial Court opined that the accused committed offence punishable under Section 304-A read with Section 175 of the Railway Act.
Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and order dated 5.7.1999, appeal was filed and dismissed.
Feeling aggrieved against the judgment dated 7.2.2001, revision was filed by Nakli Ram.
Notice was issued to the State.
Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that occurrence is dated 21.2.1996. At the time of occurrence, appellant was 48 years old. Revisionist was a gateman. The learned counsel requested that revisionist be released on probation. In support of this contention he placed reliance on Ram Pal Vs. State of Punjab, 2006(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 784.
Ms. Manjari Nehru Kaul, DAG,Punjab argued that no objection, if revisionist is ordered to be released on probation and is directed to pay compensation to the heirs of the deceased.
Submission of the learned defence counsel for the
Crl. Revision No.191 of 2001.
4
petitioner seems to be reasonable one. Revisionist remained in custody for sometime. He was 48 years old at the time of accident on 21.2.1996. Revisionist is to become hard criminal if sent to jail to undergo imprisonment. Revisionist belongs to a poor family and he was not a previous convict. So, keeping in view the nature of offence and antecedents of the revisionist, impugned order dated 7.2.2001 is upheld with the modification that instead of undergoing imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court, revisionist is directed to be released on probation on furnishing probation bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year and to pay Rs.50,000/- more,as cost of the litigation. Revisionists is to receive sentence as and when called upon, in case of breach of the conditions of the probation bonds. Rs.50,000/- if deposited by the revisionist is to be paid as compensation to the heirs of the deceased namely Sohan Singh. Probation bonds are to be furnished within two months from today before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar. Rs.50000/- is also to be deposited within two months with the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar failing which revision would stand dismissed and revisionist is to undergo imprisonment as the impugned judgment of the Ist Appellate Court.
13.2.2009 Anoop
( JORA SINGH ) JUDGE
Crl. Revision No.191 of 2001. 5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellate order convicting the petitioner for causing death by negligence under Section 304-A IPC read with Section 175 of the Railway Act can be modified to grant probation.
Whether the petitioner qualifies for release on probation bond given his age, antecedents, and the nature of the offence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ram Pal Vs. State of PunjabRelied on¶29
Ram Pal Vs. State of Punjab, 2006(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 784
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Nakli Ram
State of Punjab
JORA SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
