M.L. Singhal, J.
1. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 16.8.1990, Constable Labh Singh was posted in Police Lines, Bathinda. He was deputed to P.S. Boha for the service of notice upon Const. Sham Singh No. 1155 with regard to departmental proceedings. Const. Harcharan Singh was sent to accompany him. Const. Harcharan Singh was not in uniform. Const. Labh Singh and Constable Harcharan Singh started from P.S. Boha on motor cycle No. PUT 6643. Motor cycle was being driven by Constable Harcharan Singh. Const. Labh Singh was sitting on the pillion of the motor cycle. When they were about 300 yards behind the bridge of Rajwaha and were on main road, Jeep No. PBF6959 being driven by Megh Raj came from the front side. Const. Labh Singh had known Megh Raj since earlier due to his posting at P.S. Boha. Megh Raj was driving the jeep rashly and negligently and at a fast speed. Constable Harcharan Singh took the motor cycle towards his left hand side seeing the jeep being driven at a high speed. The jeep hit the motor cycle from front side from its right side rashly. Const. Harcharan Singh fell down. Const. Labh Singh also fell down. Megh Raj stopped the jeep at some distance after having seen them fallen on the road but again took away the jeep running it at a high speed towards bus stand of village Boha. Balbir Singh, who is brotherinlaw of Const. Labh Singh, and his friend Nikka Singh who were standing on the bridge or Rajwaha, witnessed the occurrence and they came near them. He took Const. Harcharan Singh and Const. Labh Singh to P.H.C., Boha, after leaving Nikka Singh at the spot. Const. Harcharan Singh was declared dead. Const. Labh Singh was referred to Civil Hospital, Budhlada. Accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving of the jeep by Megh Raj resulting in the death of Const. Harcharan Singh and injuries to Const. Labh Singh. Const. Labh Singh reported the matter to the police on the basis of which case FIR No. 60 was registered at P.S. Boha on 16.8.1990 under Ss. 304 A/279/338, IPC. After investigation, the accused was challaned.
2. Accused was charged under Sections 304A/337/338, IPC. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
At the conclusion of the trial, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Mansa, found the charge proved against him. He accordingly convicted him thereunder vide order dated 21.8.1997 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/, in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month under S. 304A, IPC. He further sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under S. 337, IPC. He further sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months under S. 338, IPC. He ordered the sentences to run concurrently.
3. His appeal to the Court of Session did not succeed. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge Mansa, vide order dated 17.8.1998 dismissed the appeal and maintained conviction and sentence.
4. Megh Raj has knocked the door of this Court through this revision whereby he has prayed that he be acquitted as he has been unjustly convicted by the two courts below.
5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution case hinges on the uncorroborated statement of Labh Singh. Balbir Singh and Nikka Singh were given up by the Public Prosecutor for the State. Const. Labh Singh stated that Const. Harcharan Singh (deceased) was deputed with him on motor cycle for effecting service of notice on Const. Sham Singh. It was motor cycle No. PUT6643. When both of them were going on the motor cycle towards village Achanak, they noticed a yellow colour jeep No. PBF6959 being driven by Megh Raj, present petitioner, coming in the opposite side at a very fast speed. Const. Harcharan Singh (deceased) noticed the speed and kept his motor cycle on the left side of the road and stopped it. He stated that the jeep got out of control and it struck against the motor cycle. He had known the jeep driver earlier due to his posting at P.S. Boha in the year 198788. According to Const. Labh Singh, the petitioner who was driving the jeep, ran away from the spot after hitting the motor cycle. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Balbir Singh is the real brother of Labh Singh while Nikka Singh was shown to be a friend of Balbir Singh. It is unbelievable that Megh Raj, petitioner, could win over them. He further submitted that it is not believable that Const. Labh Singh could recognise the driver of the jeep and named him in the FIR when due to impact he must have gone in shock because of simple and grievous injuries to him and fatal injuries to Harcharan Singh (deceased). Const. Labh Singh could not have known Megh Raj who was only a jeep driver and he has given no reason how he had known him earlier. He further submitted that they swore affidavits before MACT Bathinda and also made statements that Labh Singh and the deceased had come to the bank at 3.00 p.m. on 16.8.1990 and in the evening they learnt that they had met with an accident. Suffice it to say if they did not support the authorship of the accident by Meg Raj, that does not mean that Megh Raj did not author this accident. Const. Labh Singh has categorically stated that the accident was caused by Megh Raj due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep resulting in the death of Harcharan Singh and injuries (simple and grievous) to him. If Const. Labh Singh had not identified Megh Raj, he could have surrendered before the magistrate and made application that he be put up at test identification parade. He did not do so which shows that he was not disputing his identity.
6. I have gone through the judgment of the learned magistrate. The learned magistrate has correctly appreciated the evidence on record. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the appreciation of evidence by the learned magistrate.
7. I have gone through the judgment recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and do not find any infirmity or illegality in the reappraisal of evidence by him. In revision, this court cannot appreciate evidence over again but can go through the record with a view to find out if there is any serious illegality or infirmity in the appreciation of evidence by the two courts below having brought about miscarriage of justice.
In my opinion, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge justifiably maintained the conviction recorded by the learned magistrate against the accused under Sections 304A/337/338, Indian Penal Code.
8. Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner should be given the benefit of provisions of Probation of Offender Act, 1958, inasmuch as, he is a first offender. In support of this submission, he drew my attention to Raghbir Singh v. State of Punjab, 1996(1) RCR 502 and Mann Parkash v. State of Haryana, 1996(1) RCR 437.
It was submitted that the petitioner has two daughters who are of marriageable age. He has two small children. He has been facing the agony of this trial for the last eight years. In my opinion, the petitioner does not deserve to be released on probation of good conduct as he was driving a heavy vehicle. While on road, it is the duty of driver of a heavy vehicle to be careful and cautious, while driving, about the safety of pedestrians, cyclists, scooterists, etc. Because of rashness and negligence on his part, a human life was lost. The petitioner has been facing the agony of this trial for the last eight years. It is the duty of the court to assure the accused of speedy trial. If the court is not able to assure the accused of speedy trial, the court should show consideration to him in the matter of sentence on this account. In this case, therefore, I feel that the sentence passed upon the petitioner should be slashed to some extent. The sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him is accordingly reduced to six months'' rigorous imprisonment under Section 304A, IPC. The sentence of fine together with the default clause shall remain intact. The sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him on other counts is maintained. The sentences shall run concurrently. Subject to this reduction is sentence, this revision fails and is dismissed.
Revision dismissed.
