SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- K.T. Thomas and R.P. Sethi, JJ.

Crl. MP No. 5636 of 2000 in SLP (Crl.) No.. of 2000, From the Judgment and Order dated 17-3-2000 in Crl. R. No. 223 of 1988 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. D/d. 15.9.2000.

Thakur Singh - Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab - Respondent

For the Petitioner :- Satinder Gulati and Chander Shekhar Ashri, Advocates.

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 304A - Evidence Act, 1872, Sections 101 and 103 - Causing death by rash and negligent driving - Burden of proof - Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur - Fact admitted that the appellant driver was driving the vehicle when accident occurred - Held, It is also admitted that bus was driven over a bridge and then it fell into canal - In such a situation the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur comes into play and the burden shifts on to the man who was in control of the automobile to establish that the accident did not happen on account of any negligence on his part - He did not succeed in showing that the accident happened due to causes other than negligence on his part - Conviction of appellant by trial Court and subsequent confirmation of it by High Court upheld.

[Para 4]

B. Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, Section 4 - Applicability where death caused by rash and negligent driving - Held that, probation of Offenders Act cannot be invoked in cases involving rash or negligent driving of the bus resulting in death of human beings - 2000(5) SCC 82 relied.

[Para 6]

Cases Referred :-

Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana, (2000) 5 SCC 82.

ORDER

K.T. Thomas, J. - Delay condoned.

2. Application for exemption from surrendering is refused.

3. We heard learned counsel at considerable length, particularly because of a grievance that the High Court did not hear his counsel. The petitioner is found to have committed the offence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that he drove a bus rashly and negligently with 41 passengers therein and while crossing a bridge the bus fell into the nearby canal and all the passengers died. Learned counsel submits that prosecution has not proved the negligence on the part of the driver.

4. It is admitted that the petitioner himself was driving the vehicle at the relevant time. It is also admitted that bus was driven over a bridge and then it fell into canal. In such a situation the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur comes into play and the burden shifts on to the man who was in control of the automobile to establish that the accident did not happen on account of any negligence on his part. He did not succeed in showing that the accident happened due to causes other than negligence on his part.

5. We have stated the above aspects only in the wake of the grievance expressed by the learned counsel that the petitioner was not heard by the High Court. We find no reason to interfere with the conviction passed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court which the High Court declined to interfere with.

6. Learned counsel lastly made an alternative plea that the Probation of Offenders Act may be applied to secure his job. This Court has held in Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana, (2000) 5 SCC 82, that the Probation of Offenders Act cannot be invoked in cases involving rash or negligent driving of the bus resulting in death of human beings. This is what this Court observed there: (SCC p. 87, para 13)

"13. Bearing in mind the galloping trend in road accidents in India and the devastating consequences visiting the victims and their families, criminal courts cannot treat the nature of the offence under Section 304A Indian Penal Code as attracting the benevolent provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. While considering the quantum of sentence to be imposed for the offence of causing death by rash or negligent driving of automobiles, one of the prime considerations should be deterrence. A professional driver pedals the accelerator of the automobile almost throughout his working hours. He must constantly inform himself that he cannot afford to have a single moment of laxity or inattentiveness when his leg is on the pedal of a vehicle in locomotion. He cannot and should not take a chance thinking that a rash driving need not necessarily cause any accident; or even if any accident occurs it need not necessarily result in the death of any human being; or even if such death ensues he might not be convicted of the offence; and lastly, that even if he is convicted he would be dealt with leniently by the court. He must always keep in his mind the fear psyche that if he is convicted of the offence for causing death of a human being due to his callous driving of the vehicle he cannot escape from a jail sentence. This is the role which the courts can play, particularly at the level of trial courts, for lessening the high rate of motor accidents due to callous driving of automobiles."

7. There is no reason to depart from the dictum laid down in the case referred to above.

8. Accordingly, special leave petition is dismissed.

SLP dismissed.