IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the importance of deterrence in sentencing for offences of rash and negligent driving and considered the mitigating circumstances of the case to strike a balance between corrective and deterrence theories in the sentencing process.

JUDGMENT :

1. Petitioner has been held guilty for offence under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Alwar, in criminal case No.740/1994 vide judgment dated 09.04.2002 and while affirming the conviction of petitioner for such offences, the appellate Court being Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases) and Additional Sessions Judge, Alwar, in Criminal Appeal No.34/2003 vide Judgment dated 03.05.2003, sentenced the petitioner as under:-

(a) Sections 279 IPC- Two months simple imprisonment.

(b) Section 304-A IPC- Six months simple imprisonment. Hence, feeling aggrieved by judgments dated 03.05.2003 and 09.04.2002, petitioner has filed this criminal revision petition under Section 397 r/w Section 401 Cr.P.C.

2. Briefly stated, facts of the present case are that the bus bearing No.RSB-2982, driven by the petitioner, came to be collided with a bicycle on 30.07.1991, on the main Delhi-Alwar highway and in this accident, bicycle rider namely Ghanshyam Singh and pillion rider Jagdish died. On the written report by one Gangaram, a FIR came to be registered wherein after investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner and then trial court read over accusation of charges for offence under Sections 279, 304-A IPC and on claiming no guilty by the petitioner, the criminal trial was commenced.

During course of trial, only four witnesses for prosecution stepped into witness box and no witnesses appeared to prove the site map (Ex.P-2) so also to prove the postmortem reports (Ex.P-10 and P-11) of deceased Ghanshyam and Jagdish. On the basis of statements of prosecution witnesses PW-1 to PW-4 and plea of accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., finally vide Judgment dated 21.03.1997, petitioner was convicted for ofences under Section 279, 304-A IPC and was sentenced for a maximum period of imprisonment of two years for offence under Section 304-A IPC and for a period of three month simple imprisonment for offence under Section 279 IPC.

3. Petitioner challenged the judgment dated 21.03.1997 by means of filing statutory appeal and the appellate Court clearly observed that there is no evidence of prosecution that petitioner was driving the bus with high speed, as PW-1 and PW-2 who were eye witnesses, accept in their cross-examination that bus was plying on the highway road with an ordinary speed like other vehicles. It was observed by the Appellate Court that to prove the guilt on the part of petitioner to drive the bus rashly or negligently, document of site map (Ex.P-2) has not been proved by the Investigation Officer who prepared the site map. Similarly, the postmortem reports (Ex.P-10 & P-11) have also not been proved. It was also observed that the plea of the petitioner accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was not recorded in proper manner and correct picture of evidence of prosecution witnesses was not projected before the accused, and same was also found faulty. Finally, the appellate Court vide its Judgment dated 11.12.1998, quashed the judgment of conviction dated 21.03.1997 passed by the trial Court, however in stead of acquitting the accused petitioner, remanded the matter to the trial Court giving further opportunity to the prosecution to prove the guilt of petitioner. The copy of judgment dated 11.12.1998 is available on record.

4. After remand, on the request of prosecution, learned trial Court issued summons to record statements of ASI Lekhraj who prepared the site map (Ex.P-2) as also to one Harish Manocha a jurist, who conducted the postmortem and prepared postmortem reports (Ex.P-10 & P-11). Only Harish Manocha appeared to produce his evidence as PW-5 but ASI Lekhraj did not turn up to give his evidence despite taking resort of all modes to summon him. Finally, the evidence of prosecution has to be closed by the trial Court. The noteworthy point is that site map (Ex.P-2) could not be proved by the prosecution by producing the person i.e. ASI, Lekhraj who prepared