The High Court maintained the petitioner's conviction for rash and negligent driving causing death but reduced the sentence under Section 304-A IPC from two years to 1.5 years while upholding the conviction and fine.
Sentence of imprisonment under Section 304-A IPC reduced from two years to 1½ years; other sentences and convictions maintained.
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
Criminal Revision No. 281 of 2003 Date of Decision : August 02, 2010
Yashdev
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
.....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
Present: Mr. S.S.Walia, Advocate
Mr. Manish Deswal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana
T.P.S. MANN, J.
The trial Court convicted the petitioner under Section 279 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. He was also convicted under Section 304-A IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. He paid the fine before the trial Court.
Aggrieved of his conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal but the same was dismissed by the appellate Court. He is now before this Court by way of revision under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
According to the prosecution, on 5.11.1991 the petitioner was driving Haryana Roadways bus No. HR-12-1756 in a rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed. In the process, it went on the
Crl. Revision No. 281 of 2003 -2-
wrong side of the road and hit jeep No. DL-3C-9827 in which 14/15 passengers were sitting and complainant Balwan Singh had also boarded the same for going to Hisar. As a result of the accident all the passengers of the jeep including the complainant received injuries. The injured were then transported to Civil Hospital, Hansi where seven of them died. Four more died later on. On receiving intimation from the hospital, SI Dale Singh reached there and recorded the statement of complainant Balwan Singh, on the basis of which FIR No. 331 dated 5.11.1991 was registered at Police Station City, Hansi for offences under Sections 279/337/338/304-A IPC.
The trial Court found a prima facie case against the petitioner for the aforementioned offences and charge sheeted him, accordingly, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW1 Satbir Singh, PW2 Vir Bhan, PW3 Sohan Lal, PW4 Ali Sher, PW5 Satbir son of Umed Singh, PW6 Dr. K.S.Rathor, PW7 Ram Lal, PW7 Balraj HC, PW8 Dr. K.N.Srivastava, PW9 Jagat Singh, PW10 Balwan Singh, PW11 Amar Singh, PW12 Dr. Urmila Dhatarwal, PW13 Dr. S.K.Gupta, PW14 Dr. Shashi Chaudhary, PW15 Dr. R.K.Chaudhary, PW16 Ramesh Kumar, PW17 Attar Singh, PW18 Babbar Singh, PW19 Sarwar Singh, PW20 Bhagwan Dass, PW21 T.R.Mittal, PW22 Satbir son of Ram Singh, PW23 Dalbir Singh, PW24 Khaman Ram and PW25 Dr. S.S.Dahiya.
When the petitioner was examined under Section 313
-3-
Crl. Revision No. 281 of 2003
Cr.P.C., he pleaded false implication. He tendered in evidence document Ex.D1.
The trial Court believed the prosecution version and convicted and sentenced the petitioner, as mentioned above.
Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence of the petitioner on the ground that complainant Balwan Singh was not examined by the prosecution in support of its case and, therefore, the FIR remained unproved. Secondly, the Investigating Officer was also not examined by the prosecution.
It is true that the FIR was registered on the basis of statement made by complainant Balwan Singh, yet, later on when he was shifted to PGI, Rohtak, he too succumbed to his injuries on 8.11.1991. In such a situation, the petitioner cannot derive any benefit on account of non examination of the complainant in the Court. On the other hand, the statement made by Balwan Singh before the police upon which the FIR was registered later on, has to be treated as a dying declaration, as it related to the cause of his death.
During recording of the prosecution evidence, the defence was not able to point out any material contradiction or omission in the statements of the witnesses, which could have necessitated the examination of the Investigating Officer, as it was he, who had recorded their statements during the investigation of the case. Therefore, no prejudice had been caused to the defence on account of non-examination
Crl. Revision No. 281 of 2003 -4-
of the Investigating Officer.
Both the Courts below had relied upon the testimonies of PW1 Satbir Singh and PW7 Head Constable Balraj to conclude that it was the petitioner, who was driving the roadways bus in a rash and negligent manner at the time of the accident and while taking the bus on the right hand side of the road, dashed against the jeep, as a result of which, in all, eleven persons lost their lives while a few others received injuries.
Therefore, no case is made out for any interference in the conviction of the petitioner for the various offences. However, the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the petitioner for offence under Section 304-A IPC is slightly on the higher side and needs to be reduced to 1½ years.
Resultantly, the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC is maintained. His substantive sentence of imprisonment of two years under Section 304-A IPC is reduced to imprisonment for 1½ years. The sentence of imprisonment under Section 279 IPC as well as the sentence of fine on both the counts alongwith their default clauses are maintained. The substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.
The revision is, accordingly, disposed of.
Crl. Revision No. 281 of 2003 -5-
( T.P.S. MANN ) August 02, 2010 JUDGE ajay-1
3 issues framed by the court
Whether interference is warranted regarding the conviction of the petitioner for rash and negligent driving causing death.
Whether the sentence imposed under Section 304-A IPC is sustainable or requires reduction.
Whether non-examination of the dying declaration (complainant) caused any prejudice to the defence.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Yashdev
State of Haryana
T.P.S. Mann
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
