GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GURCHARAN Singh petitioner was brought to trial and convicted under Sections 4-A, 338 and 337, Indian Penal Code, by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, on the 7th of February, 1980. A sentence of 15 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/- was imposed on the major charge whilst 4 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- was directed to be imposed under Section 338, Indian Penal Code and to one month and a fine of Rs. 200/- under Section 337, Indian Penal Code. On appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whilst upholding the conviction of the petitioner reduced his sentence under Section 404-A, Indian Penal Code to one year's rigorous imprisonment and the fine to Rs. 1000/- Under sections 338 and 337, Indian Penal Code, the substantive sentence of the petitioner were maintained but the amount of fine was reduced to Rs. 300/- and Rs. 100/-, respectively. The substantive sentences so awarded to the petitioner were, however, ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution case is simple in nature. On 29th December, 1977, Pritam Singh, P.W. was going to Ludhiana, to purchase fertilizer and Jagir Singh P.W., a resident of village Mundian Khurd, was also going to Ludhiana, on a Rehra. Pritam Singh was given a lift in his Rehra by Jagir Singh. Smt Nirmla and her children also got a lift in the Rehra from village Jamalpur. The wife of Hari Shankar and his children were also in the Rehra. Hari Shankar himself was following the Rehra on a cycle. At about 12 noon when the Rehra of Jagir Singh reached near the Punjab Poultry Farm, Ludhiana, a truck bearing No. ASU 1296 driven by Gurcharan Singh petitioner came from the side of Ludhiana. The petitioner tried to overtake another which was coming from the side of Ludhiana and while doing so, he took his truck towards the right side of the road and struck the Rehra of Jagir Singh which was going on the correct side of the road. As a result of the accident, the Rehra fell into the pits and the occupants of the Rehra sustained injuries. Thereafter, the truck ran over Shivpujan and another unknown person, who were coming on foot, as a result of which those persons died at the spot. Hari Shankar, P.W., also received injures as a result of the accident.

(3.) I am unable to find any merit in this connection. As has already been noticed, the prosecution witnesses are categoric in their statements that the petitioner was driving the vehicle at a high speed and in the process of overtaking a bus, which was going a hald of the truck, the petitioner took his truck to the right side and hit the Rehra. As a result of this accident, 8 persons were injured, 2 persons were crushed to death and a mule also died. The pleas of alleged breakage of tie-rod seems, to be conclusively denied by the evidence of Pritam Singh P.W. 1 Kalha Singh, who tested the vehicle has stated that on the breakage of the tie-rod, it is not possible for the driver to control the truck. This witness has also stated that in this case the tie-rod having been broken, the driver could not control it by any means. From the statement of Kalha Singh, the learned counsel wants me to infer that the petitioner was not negligent while driving the truck and the accident took place because of the breakage of the tie-rod. Admittedly, there is not a shred of evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner that the tie-rod was disconnected while driving. If the tie-rod of the truck had already broken, it could not be expected of the driver to overtake a bus which was going ahead of him. The manner in which the truck struck against the Rehra and thereafter ran over 2 persons, it could also result in the breakage of the tie-rod. The prosecution evidence that the petitioner was driving the truck at a very high speed and the truck hit the Rehra as a result of which the occupants of the Rehra sustained injuries and also caused the death of two persons, has not been seriously challenged. In view of those, there is no choice but to reject this cryptic pleas of the defence.