NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1827 OF 2009

SUBHASH CHAND Appellant(s)

Vs.

STATE OF PUNJAB Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT  

Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

In this appeal, the appellant-accused has called in question the order

dated 18.04.2009 in Criminal  Revision No. 621 of  2009 whereby, the High

Court  of  Punjab & Haryana,  Chandigarh has upheld his  conviction for  the

offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC').

2. The accusation against the appellant had been that on 10.03.2000, at

around 07:30 a.m., while driving a truck bearing registration No. HPS 5716 at

a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner on the wrong side of a

heavy traffic area at Mall Road, Patiala (near Malwas Cinema), he caused an

accident which resulted in the demise of the rider of an unnumbered Hero

1

Puck Moped. It was further alleged that the appellant immediately fled from

the scene with his vehicle. For the incident in question, FIR was registered at

Police Station Kotwali, Patiala on the statement of Nirpal Singh (PW-2), who

was an eye-witness to the accident  alongwith Rajinder  Singh (PW-3).  The

appellant, who was serving with ITBP, was surrendered by his commandant

and  was  arrested  on  04.04.2000.  After  completion  of  investigation,  the

accused was charge-sheeted for the offences aforesaid.  

3. In trial, the prosecution, inter alia, relied on the testimony of PW-2 Nirpal

Singh,  who asserted  that  at  the time of  the  accident,  he was going  on a

scooter with his brother Rajinder Singh and saw the truck of ITBP bearing

registration number HPS-5716 being driven by the accused in  a rash and

negligent manner; and the truck, while turning on the wrong side of the road,

ran over the moped, resulting in the demise of the rider. Rajinder Singh (PW-

3) corroborated the testimony of PW-2. The accused-appellant attempted to

suggest that his identity was in doubt as, admittedly, the driver of the offending

truck had fled from the scene.  

4. In its judgment and order dated 28.11.2005, the Trial Court rejected the

contentions urged on behalf of the accused and found it proved that he did

cause the accident which resulted in the death of the rider of moped; and

further that  the identity  of  the accused-appellant  as driver  of  the offending

vehicle was not in doubt for he was surrendered by his own commandant.

Accordingly, the Trial Court convicted the accused-appellant for the offences

under Sections 279 IPC and 304-A IPC; and awarded the punishment of 6

2

months' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation

for the offence under Section 279 IPC and 2 years' rigorous imprisonment and

fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default stipulation for the offence under Section 304-A

IPC.

5. The appeal  preferred by the accused-appellant against  the judgment

and order aforesaid was considered and dismissed by the Sessions Judge,

Patiala by the judgment dated 04.02.2009 after re-appreciation of the entire

evidence on record. The accused-appellant took the matter further in revision

(Criminal Revision No. 621 of 2009), which was also dismissed by the High

Court  of  Punjab and Haryana at  Chandigarh by the impugned order dated

18.04.2009 giving rise to this appeal.

6. The main plank of the case of the appellant is that his involvement in

the accident in question is not proved, inasmuch as his identity as the driver of

the  offending  vehicle  has  not  been  established.  The  contention  so  urged

essentially relates to a question of fact and in the present case, the Trial Court

as  also Appellate  Court,  after  detailed scrutiny  of  the evidence on record,

came to the conclusion that the appellant had been the driver of the vehicle in

question  who  fled  from  the  scene  with  his  vehicle.  Even  in  the  revision

petition, the High Court has taken pains to analyse the evidence and, after

due consideration of the material on record, including the testimony of PW-2

Nirpal  Singh  and  PW-3  Rajinder  Singh,  has  affirmed  the  finding  that  the

appellant was indeed the driver of the offending vehicle. The Courts have also

taken note of a significant circumstance that the appellant, who was driver on

3

the said truck of ITBP, was surrendered by his own commandant. On the point

of identity of the appellant-accused, the High Court has neatly summed up the

relevant factors in its impugned order dated 18.04.2009 in the following:

“…The tenor of the evidence is that Nirpal Singh (P2) did not identify as to who was driving the truck when it was involved in the accident but he identified the driver of the truck when he was produced in court. Therefore, from the said deposition it  cannot  be said that  Nirpal Singh (PW2) had failed to identify the Petitioner as the person  who  was  driving  the  truck.  Besides,  Rajinder Singh (PW3) in his deposition on 22.08.2003 stated that he identified the accused (Petitioner) present in Court who  was  driving  the  offending  truck.  Besides,  the learned JMIC Patiala in her order has observed that the FIR was lodged on the same day as the date of  the occurrence.  Moreover,  the  fact  that  the  accused (Petitioner)  was  got  surrendered  by  his  own Commandant, could not be over-looked. Therefore, the findings and the conclusions as regards the identity of the  Petitioner  as  the  person  who  was  driving  the offending vehicle stands clearly established and it is not a case of false implication of the Petitioner…. ’’  

Having  examined  the  record,  we  are  satisfied  that  the  baseless

contention  about  want  of  identification  of  the  appellant  as  the  driver  of

offending vehicle has rightly been rejected and there is no reason to consider

interference in the concurrent finding of fact in this regard.   

7.   Learned counsel for the appellant has also endeavoured to point out

certain so called shortcomings or inconsistencies in the prosecution case viz.,

that  no  dent  was  found  on  the  vehicle  in  question  on  its  mechanical

examination;  that the alleged photographs of  the site of  accident were not

4

produced; that as per the statement of PW-3 Rajinder Singh, the dead body

was removed at 10 a.m. whereas, as per PW-2 Nirpal Singh, they reached the

hospital  with the dead body of  the victim at  about  8 a.m.;  and that  in  the

inquest report, the suggestion had been that it was a case of natural death.  

8. We are clearly of the view that all the suggestions aforesaid are neither

of  any  effect  nor  of  bearing  on  the  substance  of  the  matter.  It  is  clearly

established on record that the accident in question did take place at 7:30 a.m.

on 10.03.2000, when the truck driven by the accused bumped into the moped

driven by the deceased Lavjot Singh, who fell on the road and succumbed to

the injuries sustained in this accident. In the post-mortem conducted at 2 p.m.

on 10.03.2000, the doctor concerned (PW-5 Dr. O.P. Agarwal) found multiple

lacerated wounds on the head of the deceased with abrasions on the face and

forehead; skull fractured into pieces; brain injured; and mandible and nasal

bone  fractured.  In  the  given  set  of  circumstances,  any  observation  in  the

inquest report, or any discrepancy regarding the time of reaching the hospital,

or want of photographs, or want of dent on the vehicle, do not create any

uncertainty or doubt about the prosecution case.

9. Another  suggestion  is  made  as  if  the  FIR  in  the  present  case  was

fabricated or manipulated. This suggestion is too remote and is of uncertain

nature because the FIR was registered on the statement of Nirpal Singh (PW-

2) and there had been no reason to fabricate or manipulate the FIR in this

case relating to a fatal vehicular accident.   

5

10. It has also been argued that the incident in question took place about 19

years back and the appellant has already undergone about four months of

imprisonment  and  hence,  no  useful  purpose  would  be  served  by  his

imprisonment now at this stage; and in any case, the appellant deserves to be

extended  the  benefit  of  probation.  These  submissions  also  deserve  to  be

rejected in the given set of facts and circumstances of this case.  

11. In the case of Thangasamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, Criminal Appeal

No.  698  of  2010  decided  on  20.02.2019,  we  have  rejected  similar

contentions in relation to a vehicular accident case after taking note of several

decisions  of  this  Court  on  the  principles  concerning  just  and  adequate

punishment  in  such cases,  including  those in Alister  Anthony Pareira  v.

State  of  Maharashtra:  (2012)  2  SCC  648;  State  of  M.P.  v.  Ghansyam

Singh: (2003) 8 SCC 13; Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana: (2000) 5 SCC

82; and  State of Karnataka v. Muralidhar : (2009) 4 SCC 463.  The same

principles relating to just and adequate punishment do apply to the present

case too; and we find no reason to reduce the punishment awarded or to

extend the benefit of probation where a 15 year old boy lost his life due to the

rash  and  negligent  driving  of  the  truck  by  the  appellant  and  where,  after

causing the accident, the appellant fled from the site and was surrendered by

his commandant more than 3 weeks later.  

12. Accordingly,  in view of the above, this  appeal  fails and is,  therefore,

dismissed. The appellant shall surrender before the Court concerned within a

period of  4 weeks from today and shall  undergo the remaining part  of  the

6

sentence. In case he fails to surrender within the period aforesaid, the Trial

Court will take necessary steps to ensure that he serves out the remaining

part  of  sentence,  of  course,  after  due  adjustment  of  the  period  already

undergone.

...............................................J.     (ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE)

      ..............................................J.    (DINESH MAHESHWARI)   1

New Delhi  Dated:   25th February, 2019.

7