IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 221 of 2010 Date of Decision 23rd March, 2011 __________________________________________________________ Mukesh Kumar ….Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ….Respondent. ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. ___________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General with Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy A.G. __________________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J (oral) This case was taken up today for consideration on the application for suspension of sentence. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner urges that case may be disposed of as the points involved in the main revision petition will not take much time. This prayer has not been opposed by the learned Additional Advocate General. 2. The petitioner has been convicted for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC and 181 and 185 of the 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 Motor Vehicles Act and sentened to various terms of imprisonment. The prosecution case is that on 26.12.2005 at around 7.05 P.M. a telephonic message was received from PHC Amb about an accident whereupon ASI Ashok Kumar alongwith others reached there. Sukhdev Singh complainant made a statement under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. to the effect that on 26.6.2005 at around 6.15 P.M. he was standing at Patehar alongwith Balwant Singh and Pradeep Kumar when one moped bearing No. PB-07M-2539 being driven by the petitioner hit him as a result of which he fell down and sustained injuries on his left leg and right wrist. It is also alleged that there were no lights on the moped at the time when the accident occurred. As many as 13 witnesses were examined. The learned trial Court discussed the evidence of Dr. S.K. Verma who has appeared in the witness box as PW5 and examined Mukesh Kumar, who is resident of Hoshiarpur. He issued MLC Ext.PW5/A certifying that the petitioner was smelling of alcohol, his gait was staggering with slurring of speech. The samples of his blood and urine were take and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga where the level of alcohol in blood was found 83.4 mg. percentage and in urine 168.9 mig percentage. The injuries on his body were simple. He also examined Sukhdev Chand injured and certified the injuries sustained by him in Ext.PW5/B. Injury No. 1 was found to be simple and the second was the fracture of left tibia as opined by the Doctor. The Forensic Report Ext.PA also corroborates the fact that the petitioner was drunk. 3. On the evidence of the complainant and other witnesses, the learned Court proceeded to find the petitioner guilty of the offences as charged and sentenced him to undergo 3 imprisonment for various terms, the maximum is six month rigorous imprisonment including fine etc. 4. At the time when the sentence was imposed, the learned trial Court heard the petitioner on the quantum and noticed that it was established that he was drunk when the accident occurred, therefore benefit of probation was not given to him. Appeal preferred by the petitioner herein was dismissed by the learned Sessiins Judge and rightly so, as there was no merit in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant that he was innocent. 4. The petitioner is now in revision. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also gone through the evidence on record. 5. I am not persuaded to hold that the Courts below have been wrong in coming to the conclusion that the accident had occurred because of rash and negligent act of the petitioner herein or that the judgments suffer from perversity. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner urges that moped is not a heavy vehicle and it is a cycle without gear which can hardly be driven in rash or negligent manner. Learned counsel also submits that there were many shops near the place of accident, but nobody from these shops has been produced as an independent witness. A submission is made that the case was foisted upon the petitioner herein. 6. I have reappreciated the entire evidence. I cannot persuade myself to hold that the offence is not proved. The petitioner having been found to have consumed liquor and in a state of inebriation it cannot be allowed to urge that his act is not rash and negligent. Driving after consuming alcohol cannot 4 be tolerated and it is by itself sufficient to hold that the petitioner was rash in the manner in which he was driving the vehicle. It is a notorious fact that drunken driving has become rampant and nuisance to civilized society. 7. I also find from the evidence on record that the petitioner has sustained injuries. In these circumstances, without entering into the other submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General that the petitioner does not deserve any mercy, it would be in the fitness of things if the victim of the accident is compensated. I accordingly direct that a sum of `30,000/- be paid to complainant Sukhdev Singh. This amount shall be deposited in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.1, Amb, District Una within a period of two months from today, failing which sentence of imprisonment as imposed by the learned trial Court shall revive and shall be duly and faithfully executed by the Court below. If the amount is deposited, it would be paid to the complainant forthwith. It is also directed that this amount shall not be deducted from any other compensation which may have been paid to the injured under any other law. The fine imposed by the learned trial Court shall remain as it is to be deposited by the petitioner. Petition stands disposed of. The amount awarded shall not be deducted from any other compensation awarded to the injured. Dasti copy on usual terms. March 23rd, 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud), ms Judge 5