RAMAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Raman Kumar seeks to challenge the Judgment dated 19.5.2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana by which the conviction and sentence imposed upon him by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samrala on 29.5.1999 under Sections 304-A and 279, IPC was affirmed while conviction and sentence under Section 427 IPC was set aside and he was acquitted of the said offence.

(2.) ON 13.8.1996 upon receipt of a ruqa from the Civil Hospital, Samrala a case was registered against the petitioner under Sections 270, 304-A and 427, IPC. According to the complainant Raj Kumar, it was indicated that he was a watch maker and had three brothers, Banarsi Dass, an employee of PSEB being the eldest of all, Vijay Kumar, the middle one, is working with Himachal Pradesh Electricity Board. On 13.8.1996 Banarasi Dass along with the petitioner and Mohinder Singh son of Mehar Chand, an employee of Mangat Medical Store, Ghutani Kalan were proceeding to that village after taking lunch. Banarsi Dass was proceeding ahead on a separate scooter and was being followed by Raj Kumar and Mohinder Singh. At about 2.15 P.M. when they reached near Sant Kirpal Singh Public School after crossing Neelon Bridge a bus bearing No. PB-10K-9747 belonging to the Shekopura Transport came in a fast and rash manner and without blowing the horn had struck the scooter of Banarsi Dass. On account of the impact, Banarsi Dass had fallen at the spot and sustained injuries on head. He was removed from there to the Hospital at Samrala. The Driver of the bus had disclosed his name and identity. Banarsi Dass died in the Hospital while the driver of the bus had slipped from the spot. Upon the statement of Raj Kumar, ASI Gurbachan Singh recorded the F.I.R. and after investigation during the course of which he had got the inquest report prepared in relation to the body of Banarsi Dass, completed the investigation and a challan was put in Court against the petitioner. After the trial Court had framed charges under Sections 279, 304-A and 427 IPC it had proceeded to record the evidence. In his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. petitioner denied what had been stated by the prosecution asserting that he was being falsely implicated in the case. He, however, led no evidence. The trial Court after perusing the record and hearing arguments had convicted the petitioner under the aforesaid Sections and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1-1/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 304-A IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 279 IPC; and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- per month and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 427 IPC. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner had filed an appeal, which was partly accepted on the point of charge under Section 427, IPC and dismissed in so far as the conviction and sentence under Sections 279 and 304-A, IPC are concerned. Hence, the present revision petition.

(3.) WHILE there is no doubt that the roads in India have become virtually death traps for persons moving on them in lighter vehicles yet the very fact that there has been an overall increase in the vehicular traffic is normally likely to result in corresponding increase in the number of accidents. Although, this by itself would not justify an accident but the conduct of the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident would help to provide answer to the question which would arise in relation to what sentence should be imposed on such a driver. In the present case, we have a Driver who after being involved in an accident has not only stopped near the place thereof but also after disclosing his identity removed the injured to the Hospital, so that prompt medical attention could be given to the injured. This behaviour of the petitioner immediately after the accident cannot be lost sight of while determining the quantum of sentence which should be imposed on him.