IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Criminal Revision No. 48 of 2006. Judgment reserved on : 21.9.2011 Date of decision: 24.10.2011. Ram Lal …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ....Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the Petitioner : Mr. B.N.Misra, Advocate. For the Respondent. Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General. __________________________________________________________ Kuldip Singh, Judge This revision has been directed against the judgment dated 17.4.2006 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Shimla in Criminal Appeal No. 42-S/10 of 2005 affirming judgment dated 29/30.8.2005 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Shimla in Case No. 134/2 of 2003 whereby the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 IPC and Section 185 of Motor Vehicles Act. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that complainant Amit __________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? yes 2 Nanda along with his friends Ashwani Doger, Bharat Bhushan and Sanjay Nagpal were going towards Dhalli from Vikasnagar, Shimla in their vehicle CH-03F-2499 which was being driven by Ashwani Doger. At place near Panthaghati a fast driven truck No. HP-19-4170 came from opposite wrong side and hit the car as a result of which all the occupants of the car received injuries. On the statement of Amit Nanda, FIR was registered at Police Station East, Shimla against the petitioner. On completion of investigation, challan was submitted in the Court. The notice of accusation was put to the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 IPC and Section 185 of Motor Vehicles Act. He pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined eight witnesses. 3. The petitioner was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He admitted the accident but denied his rashness or negligence for causing the accident. He has stated that he was ascending on the road, car was on wrong side and hit the truck. The petitioner led no evidence in defence. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 IPC and Section 185 of Motor Vehicles Act. He has been sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of one month and fine of ` 500/- for offence punishable under Section 279 IPC and in default of payment of fine, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 10 days. No separate sentence was imposed for offence punishable under Section 337 IPC. He has been further sentenced to simple 3 imprisonment for a period of 15 days and fine of ` 200/- for offence punishable under Section 185 of Motor Vehicles Act, in default of payment of fine, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 5 days. The substantive sentence of imprisonment shall run concurrently. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal of the petitioner on 17.4.2006, hence revision. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the two Courts below have misconstrued the evidence on record and erred in convicting and sentencing the petitioner for offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 IPC and for offence punishable under Section 185 of Motor Vehicles Act. The learned Assistant Advocate General has supported the impugned judgment. He has submitted that the view taken by the two Courts below emerges from the evidence on record and in revision the evidence cannot be re-appreciated. 5. PW-1 Dr.M.P.Singh has stated that on 7.1.2003 he examined Ashwani Doger, Sanjay Nagpal, B.B.Kapoor and Amit Nanda and issued MLCs Ex.PX-1 to Ex.PX-4. All persons had received simple injuries. The injuries are possible in road accident. He has further stated that he examined Ram Lal accused also, his blood and urine samples were taken. After receipt of chemical examination report from FSL, he appended opinion on ExPX-5 MLC. The blood sample showed 36 mg% of alcohol and urine showed 224.3 mg % of alcohol. So the person was found to have taken 4 liquor and was in a state of selective impairment of consciousness. In cross-examination, he has stated that samples taken by him were sealed. PW-2 Diwan Chand has proved FIR Ex.PW-2/A. FSL report Ex.P-2 was annexed with the file. 6. PW-3 Amit Nanda has stated that on 7.1.2003 he along with Bharat Bhushan, Sanjay Nagpal and Ashwani Doger were going towards Dhalli in car No. CH-03F-2499 which was being driven by Ashwani Doger. They were on Panthaghati – Mehli road, a truck HP-19-4510 coming from Dhalli side hit their car near Mehli. All the occupants of the car sustained injuries. The accident took place due to the negligence of the truck driver. He made the statement Ex.PW-3/A. The petitioner was driver of the truck. In cross-examination, he denied that accident took place due to negligence of Ashwani Doger. 7. PW-4 Ashwani Doger has stated that he was driving the car. The truck came over their car and caused the accident. The truck driver had consumed liquor. In cross-examination he denied that he could not properly negotiate the curve and the accident took place due to his negligence. He said his car was on extreme left. PW-5 is the Investigating Officer. PW-6 Amin Chand, ASI (Rtd.) has stated that he took opinion from the medical officer. PW-7 Lokinder Singh has proved photographs Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-7, negatives Ex.P-8 to Ex.P-14. PW-8 Roop Lal, S.I. has stated that he is working as Mechanic in police department since 1979. On 8.1.2003 he inspected the site and mechanically examined truck 5 No.HP-19-4510 and car No. CH-03F-2499 and prepared mechanical reports Ex.PW-8/A and Ex.PW-8/B of the vehicles which are signed by him. There was no mechanical defect in both the vehicles. He has denied that the reports are not correct. 8. The petitioner in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has admitted that Amit Nanda, Ashwani Doger, Bharat Bhushan and Sanjay Nagpal were in car No. CH-03F-2499 which was being driven by PW-3 Ashwani Doger on the relevant date. He admitted that in the year 2003 he used to drive truck No. HP-19- 4510. He denied that accident took place due to his rash and negligent act. He has stated that the truck was ascending and was loaded. The car was being driven on right side (wrong). The petitioner in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has not denied the photographs. He has only stated that these were not taken in his presence. PW-7 took the photographs, no question was put to PW-7 that at the time of taking of the photographs the position of the vehicles was changed. 9. The photographs Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-7 indicate the position of the vehicles at the time of the accident. It is clear from photographs Ex.P-1, Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-7 that the road at the place of accident was quite wide and the car was on extreme left side whereas the truck was on wrong side. PW-3 and PW-4 injured and occupants of the car have stated how accident took place. It emerges from their statements that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of petitioner. 6 10. The blood sample of the petitioner shows 36 mg% of alcohol. Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides that whoever while driving or attempting to drive, a motor vehicle, has, in his blood, alcohol exceeding 30 mg per 100 ml. of blood shall be punishable for the first offence with imprisonment and fine as provided in the Section. The blood sample of the petitioner was having alcohol more than the permissible limit as per Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 11. The petitioner has not denied the accident but he has taken the plea that the accident has not taken place due to his rash and negligent driving. The two Courts below have recorded a finding of fact on the basis of material on record that petitioner is responsible for the accident which was caused due to rash and negligent driving on his part. He was also found driving the vehicle under the influence of liquor. The findings recorded by the two Courts below are not perverse rather these findings emerge from the evidence as discussed above. In criminal revision, the scope of interference is very limited as held in State of Kerala vs. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri (1999) 2 SCC 452 and Raj Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 2000 (2) SLC 422. The petitioner has failed to make out any case for interference. There is no merit in the revision. 12. In view of above discussion, revision fails and is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds of the petitioner are cancelled 7 and he is directed to surrender in the court below to serve out the sentence imposed. October 24, 2011. ( Kuldip Singh ), (GR) Judge.