IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No. 188 of 2004. Decided on November 23, 2010. Devki Nandan …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ..Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner Sh. M. S.Guleria, Advocate. For the respondent Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. AG. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) Petitioner has challenged his conviction and sentence, for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC, as ordered by the trial Magistrate, vide judgment, dated 10.7.2001 and affirmed by the appellate Court, vide judgment dated 31.5.2004. 2. Petitioner was driver of truck No. HP-39- 3337. On 18.10.1995, he was allegedly reversing the truck at a place called Bangrotu, on National Highway No. 21. A scooter appeared from behind. Scooter was being driven by PW-3 Rakesh Kumar. He blew horn to Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - indicate to the petitioner to stop his truck, because a bus was coming from the opposite direction and, therefore, the scooterist could not have turned the scooter to his right hand side. Truck, however, did not stop. Rather, petitioner accelerated the speed, when it was in reverse gear and it hit the scooter. There was a pillion rider on the scooter. He sustained injuries, which proved fatal. Scooter driver, i.e. PW-3 Rakesh Kumar, also sustained several injuries. 3. Case was registered, on the basis of statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C., made by Rakesh Kumar. Spot was visited by the police and site plan Ex.PW-14/B was prepared. No mechanical defect was found in the truck, or the scooter. 4. Petitioner was challaned. Substance of accusation was put to him, to which he pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined Rakesh Kumar, scooterist, as PW-3 and one more witness, namely PW- 4 Padam Singh. It also examined the investigating officer of the case, namely PW-14 Rikhi Ram, who proved site plan Ex.PW-14/B. 5. PW-3 Rakesh Kumar, who was driving the scooter, though did state that truck was in motion, in reverse gear and that he blew horn of his scooter, indicating to the petitioner to stop the truck, but the - 3 - latter paid no heed, yet site plan Ex.PW-14/B shows that the truck was to the extreme left side of the road, of its driver, when the alleged accident took place. PW-4 Padam Singh stated that the truck was not in motion, though its engine had been ignited, when accident took place. Scooterist PW-3 himself admitted, in cross examination, that there was 8-9 feet wide space upto mid line of the road, from the point, where the accident took place. No doubt, he stated that bus was coming from the opposite direction, but still there was enough space for the scooterist, to swerve his scooter up to mid line. Width of the road, at the site, is shown to be 35 feet, out of which 24 feet is pucca portion and 11 feet kacha portion, per site plan Ex.PW- 14/B. 6. In any case, when according to PW-3 Rakesh Kumar, truck was reversing and there was a bus, coming from the opposite side, he could have very easily brought the scooter to a halt, or taken it to the kacha portion of the road, on his extreme left hand side. It appears from the site plan, as also the testimony of PW-4 Padam Singh, who has stated that the truck was stationary, that the scooterist got unnerved, on seeing the bus, coming from the opposite - 4 - direction and his scooter rammed into the stationary truck of the petitioner. 7. In view of the above stated position, revision petition is allowed, judgments of the two Courts below, convicting and sentencing the petitioner of offences, under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC, are set aside and he is acquitted. Fine, if already paid, shall be refunded to the petitioner. November 23, 2010 (PC). (Surjit Singh) Judge.