The High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging a conviction under Sections 279, 304-A, 337, and 338 IPC for a rash driving accident causing death and injury, finding no merit in the alleged procedural lapses.
The revision petition was dismissed, upholding the conviction and sentence of the Additional Sessions Judge.
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.
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Crl. Revision No. 402 of 2002
Date of decision: March 09, 2009
Lachhman Singh
... Petitioner
vs.
State of Punjab
... Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal
Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. O.P. Dabla, AAG, Punjab for the respondent.
A.N. Jindal, J
Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 1.2.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (I), Kapurthala, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner Lachhman Singh (herein referred as 'the petitioner') against the judgment dated 16.4.1999 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phagwara, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 279 IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- under Section 304-A IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 337 IPC; and to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.200/- under Section 338 IPC.
The brief resume of facts is that on 2.2.1997, complainant Gurdas Ram (PW3), along with his son was returning to Jalandhar after meeting with his relatives at Goraya. A maruti car bearing
Crl. Revision No. 402 of 2002 -2-
registration No. DNB-7653 was going ahead of him. At about 2.30 p.m. when the said car reached ahead of village Khajuria, then the petitioner while driving bus bearing registration No. PB-03D-6303 of Roop Transport Company rashly and negligently came from the wrong side of the road and struck against his car, as a sequel of which Akwant Kaur, Malkit Kaur, Paramjit Kaur, Kanakpal Singh, Prem Singh and mother of Kanakpal Singh received injuries. The injured were shifted to the hospital. Injured Prem Singh succumbed to the injuries at Pasricha Hospital, Jalandhar. On the basis of the aforesaid statement of Gurdas Ram, a case FIR was registered and the investigation commenced. The petitioner was arrested on 5.2.1997. On completion of the investigation, challan against the petitioner was presented in the Court.
The petitioner was charged for the offence under Sections 379/337/338/304-A IPC, to which he denied as incorrect and opted to contest.
In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined C. Surinder Pal (PW1), C. Rajeshwar Dutt (PW2), Gurdas Ram (PW3), Akwant Kaur (PW4), Paramjit Kaur (PW5), Dr. Pushpinder Kaur (PW6), HC Ajit Ram (PW7) and ASI Sukhraj Singh (PW8).
When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the petitioner denied all the allegations and pleaded his false implication in the case. He further explained that he was not driving the bus at the time of accident.
Ultimately the trial ended in conviction. The appeal preferred by him also failed.
Arguments heard. Record perused.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
Crl. Revision No. 402 of 2002 -3-
occurrence in this case took place at 2.30 p.m. and the FIR was registered at 7.35 p.m. The said delay in lodging the FIR has not been explained by the prosecution.
In this regard, it may be observed that the complainant Gurdas Ram took the injured to the Civil Hospital, Jalandhar and Pasricha Hospital, Jalandhar respectively and after admitting the injured persons in the hospital went to the police to lodge the report. ASI Sukhraj Singh met him at Bus Stand Sapror who recorded his statement, made the endorsement at 4.00 p.m. and sent ruqa to the police station for registration of the case, on the basis of which FIR was registered at 7.35 p.m. His first priority was to get the injured admitted in the hospital so that they could be provided with the medical aid. As such, the delay in lodging the FIR stands duly explained.
As regards the other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant in his statement Ex.PA mentioned the number of the offending bus as 6303, subsequently, he changed his version and mentioned the same as 6306, which shows that the complainant was not present at the spot, the same sans merit. The complainant Gurdas Ram (PW3) in his statement before the court has categorically mentioned that the number of the offending bus was PB-03D-6306. C. Rajeshwar Dutt (PW2), Akwant Kaur (PW4) and ASI Sukhraj Singh (PW8) have also deposed that the number of the offending bus was PB-03D-6306. The photographs Ex.PW2/7 and Ex.PW2/8 clearly show that the number of bus is 6306. The testimony of the complainant could not be discarded merely on the ground that the number of the bus was wrongly written by the Investigating Officer. Similarly, I do not find any force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel that the rash and negligent act is not proved and the petitioner was
Crl. Revision No. 402 of 2002 -4-
not driving the offending bus at the time of accident, as it has been categorically deposed by the complainant that when the maruti car reached near the gate Khajuria village, a bus bearing registration No. PB-03D-6306 belonging to Roop Transport Company came from the opposite side. He further deposed that there are two parallel roads to each other, one is meant for going to Jalandhar from Phagwara and the other going to Phagwara from Jalandhar. The offending bus came from the side of Jalandhar but was on the wrong side of the road which is meant for going towards Jalandhar. He categorically identified the petitioner to be driver of the offending bus driving rashly and negligently. His testimony has been corroborated by Akwant Kaur (PW4) who has also deposed in the similar terms. She withstood the test of cross examination and deposed that she had seen the petitioner driving the offending bus at the time of accident and thereafter. Even otherwise the petitioner did not lead any evidence to prove that he was not driving the bus at the time of accident. As such, these contentions also cannot be sustained.
As an upshot of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that both the courts below have touched all the material points very elaborately. No irregularity much less illegality has been detected or pointed out warranting interference at my end.
Consequently, the revision petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed.
(A.N. Jindal) Judge
March 09, 2009 deepak
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the delay in FIR registration and discrepancy in bus number warrant interference with the conviction.
4 provisions across 1 enactments
Lachhman Singh
State of Punjab
A.N. Jindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
