JAGSIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jagsir Singh son of Kheta Singh has filed the present revision petition. He was nominated as an accused in case FIR No.236 dated 30.12.1991, registered Police Station Sadar Abohar under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A, 427 IPC. Petitioner was a driver of Mini Bus bearing registration No.PB-05-1044 belonging to Kamboj Bus Service. On 30.12.1991 at about 12/12.30 noon, his bus had hit Maruti car bearing registration No.DBB 7676 driven by one Om Parkash. It was stated in the FIR that Mini Bus had collided with the Maruti car as petitioner was guilty of rash and negligent driving. In the accident, Nazar Singh son of Arjun Singh and Om Parkash son of Dhonkal Ram had died. PW3 Dr.Pirthi Raj, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Abohar conducted autopsy on the dead body of Om Parkash. Nature of injuries leave no doubt that Om Parkash died due to vehicular accident. PW7 Dr.R.K.Arora conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Nazar Singh on 31.12.1991. Injuries suffered by Nazar Singh also justify his opinion that cause of death was shock and hemorrhage as a result of the accident.

(2.) In the present case, FIR was lodged by Gurdev Singh. He appeared as PW1 and proved his statement Ex.PA. His version was corroborated by the testimony of Rajwinder Kaur PW2 his wife who was also injured in the accident. Krishan Lal PW5 another eye witness also proved prosecution version. Bur Singh PW4 Mechanic, Punjab Roadways, Ferozepur proved mechanical report Ex.PW4/A in respect of Maruti car and Mini Bus.

(3.) The Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Abohar held that eye witnesses inspire confidence and relying upon their testimony held the petitioner guilty for offence under Sections 279, 304-A and 338 IPC. The trial Court sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 279 IPC. He was also sentenced for a period of two years and a fine of Rs.2,000/- and to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months in default of payment of fine under Section 304-A IPC. The petitioner was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 338 IPC. The entire prosecution evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. He denied incriminating circumstances. However, he stated that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the car. The striking feature of the case is that the petitioner had not run away from the spot but had taken the injured to the hospital and admitted his presence at the spot. Aggrieved against the decision of the trial Court, the petitioner filed an appeal. The Appellate Court not only took into consideration the protracted trial but held that Rajwinder Kaur PW2 and Krishan Lal PW5 being injured persons have deposed against the petitioner. The Appellate Court affirmed the findings of the trial Court on basis of the statement of the witnesses and also held that accused was guilty of rash and negligent driving. However, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner had taken the injured to the hospital and suffered the protracted trial, the Appellate Court reduced the sentence under Section 304-A IPC from two years to one year and under Section 338 IPC from one year to six months.