Punjab & Haryana HC: Conviction for Rash and Negligent Driving Causing Death Upheld, Plea of Father Driving Car Rejected

Case Name: Mandeep Singh v. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: January 14, 2020
Citation: CRR No. 2701 of 2019 (O&M)
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ramendra Jain

Held: The High Court dismissed the revision petition and upheld concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts convicting the petitioner under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC for causing death of a couple by rash and negligent driving. It rejected the defense plea that the accident was caused by the petitioner’s father and not him. The Court held that the testimony of the eye-witness, corroborated by medical and police records, clearly proved the petitioner’s guilt. It also clarified that Section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act, relating to fitness certificates, applies only to transport vehicles and was irrelevant in this case as the offending car was a private vehicle.

Summary: The petitioner was tried for offences under Sections 279, 427, and 304-A IPC for causing the death of Bharat Bhushan and his wife Ritu Rani in a 2014 accident while driving his car rashly. The trial court convicted him and sentenced him to six months under Section 279 IPC and two years with fine under Section 304-A IPC, while acquitting him under Section 427 IPC. The appellate court upheld the conviction and sentence, maintaining only the acquittal under Section 427 IPC. In revision, the petitioner argued that his father was driving the vehicle at the time of accident and relied on his father’s testimony. He also contended that the prosecution’s eye-witness was not present on the spot and that no vehicle fitness certificate was obtained as required under the Motor Vehicles Act. The High Court found these defenses baseless, noting that the father’s version had been investigated and found false, and that the eye-witness was credible and known to the petitioner. It emphasized that absence of a fitness certificate was immaterial since the car was a private vehicle and the accident itself was admitted. The Court further observed that no evidence was led to suggest prosecution witnesses had any motive to falsely implicate the petitioner.

Decision: The High Court dismissed the revision, upheld the conviction and sentence under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC, and directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa, to issue warrants of arrest against the petitioner for compliance with the appellate court’s order.