IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No: 70 of 2001 Date of decision : 25.03.2008 Bhupinder Singh ..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. ..Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Bindiya Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) The petitioner was convicted for having committing offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months and to pay find of Rs. 200/- and in default to undergo 15 days’ simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 337 IPC; with regard to offence under Section 338 IPC the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 simple imprisonment for 30 days; under Section 304-A IPC, the petitioner was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in case of default, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 30 days. The brief facts necessary for decision of the case are that the petitioner was driver with a bus bearing registration No. HP-10-0111. On 12.6.1995 the petitioner was driving this bus on the Jangla-Rohru route. At a place near Samoli Bridge, the petitioner could not control the bus and the same fell into the Pubbar river. 9 persons travelling in the bus died. FIR was lodged and challan was filed against the petitioner for having committed the aforesaid offences. The petitioner was convicted by the learned trial court and his conviction was upheld by the learned appellate court. Hence the present revision petition. The main plank of the prosecution case is that there were about 115 passengers in the bus. This, according to the prosecution itself, is sufficient to show the criminal negligence on the part of the driver who drove a highly over-loaded bus on a narrEUOLP[--+ow hill road. 3 As many as 15 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. PW-2 Ali Mohammad is an eye witness. He was present at Samoli Bridge. He saw the accident and alongwith his labourers managed to save some of the passengers. He has stated that the bus was being driven by the petitioner and it was highly overloaded and a large number of persons were sitting on the roof of the bus. PW-3 Bhag Chand has made a similar statement and has stated that there were more than 100 passengers in the bus. He was also a passenger in the bus. He resiled from the statement made to the police. He was declared hostile and was cross examined. In cross examination he stated that the accident was caused due to overloading and plying the vehicle in bad condition. He has attributed rash and negligent driving to the petitioner. Similar statements have been made by PWs 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9. All these persons were travelling in the bus and have stated that the accident occurred since the bus was overloaded. PW-7, Banwari Lal conducted mechanical examination of the bus. According to his investigation the accident was caused because of overloading and due to 4 this the bus tilted. The other witnesses are formal witnesses. The undisputed facts which emerge from the evidence are that the petitioner was the driver of the bus; the bus was carrying more than 100 passengers; some passengers were occupying the roof of the bus and some were hanging from the rear of the bus; the accused permitted the passengers to board the bus and himself drove the overloaded bus; it also stands proved that the accident occurred due to the tilting of the bus due to overloading in which 9 persons died and a large number of persons were injured. The learned trial court on the basis of the evidence led before it, came to the conclusion that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Bhupender Singh. The court found that seating capacity of the bus was only 32 and the petitioner herein permitted as many as 114 passengers to board the bus. This was more than 3 times its capacity. This by itself was such an act of rashness and negligence that the accident was bound to happen. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner filed an appeal which was decided by the learned 5 Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla. The appeal has been dismissed by holding that the judgment of the trial court is based on proper appreciation of evidence. Both the courts below have held, on the basis of the evidence recorded before them, that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been unable to point out any legal error in the judgments of the courts below. What is a rash and negligent act will depend on the facts of each case. In my view when the driver of a vehicle permits it to be overloaded to such a great extent, this act by itself is a rash and negligent act. The driver is expected to be aware that overloading of the bus may lead to an accident, especially when he is driving on a narrow hill road. The findings given by the learned courts below are based on proper appreciation of evidence led before the trial court. I find no error in the same. The petition is, therefore, without any merit which is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner, who is on bail, is directed to surrender and undergo the sentence imposed upon him. March 25, 2008(K) ( Deepak Gupta ), J.