IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No.113 of 2001 Date of decision : July 15, 2008 Ashok Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1. Yes For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashutosh Burathoki, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. A.G. with Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. A.G. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) Revision petitioner was charged with and tried for offences, punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly driving Maruti Van, bearing registration No.HP-02-2198, in so rash or negligent a manner as to endanger human life or personal safety of others and while so driving knocking down a young girl, named Kamlesh, Kumari, aged about 18 years and dragging her to a distance of about 90 feet and causing her death. 2. Prosecution examined PW-1 Des Raj, a brother and PW-3 Sagna Devi, a sister of the deceased. PW-1 Des Raj was not on the spot when the accident took place, per his own testimony. He was cross-examined by the prosecution with the leave of the Court. It was this witness, who lodged the Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… FIR, and according to the contents of FIR Ext.PW9/C also, he was not on the spot when the accident took place, but was getting ready to go to his place of work and went to the spot only after he heard the sound of a bang. 3. PW-3 Sagna Devi, a sister of the deceased, stated that she and the deceased were going together to the field to dump cow-dung and that she was walking ahead of the victim when the accident took place. She very categorically stated that on being hit by the vehicle, the victim got trapped in the rear portion of the vehicle and was dragged to a distance of 90 feet. This part of her testimony was not subjected to cross-examination. In the FIR also, it is mentioned that the deceased was dragged to a distance of 90 feet. 4. Trial Court convicted the revision petitioner of both the aforesaid offences and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-; in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months, for both the offences. 5. Appeal was filed by the revision petitioner in the Court of learned Sessions Judge which stands dismissed, vide judgment dated 6.8.2001. 6. I have heard the learned counsel representing the revision petitioner. It is submitted that since PW-3 Sagna Devi was walking ahead of the deceased, she was not in a position to witness the accident and, therefore, her statement that the accident took place because of rash or negligent …3… driving of the vehicle cannot be believed. I do not agree with the submission for the simple reason that even though PW-3 Sagna Devi may not have been in a position to see the initial banging of the vehicle into the deceased, but she was in a position to see the vehicle dragging the deceased to a distance of 90 feet when it (the vehicle) went past her. 7. The very fact that the deceased was dragged to a long distance of 90 feet, per unchallenged testimony of PW-3 Sagna Devi, speaks volume of the revision petitioner being rash or negligent, while driving the vehicle. If a vehicle is driven at normal speed and brake is applied to bring it to a halt, it will stop at a distance of not more than 8-10 feet. In the present case, after the van of the revision petitioner hit the deceased, she got trapped in the rear portion of the van and was dragged to a distance of 90 feet. The fact proves not only that the vehicle was being driven at a very fast speed amounting to rash driving, but also that the revision petitioner was negligent in driving the vehicle, within the meaning of Section 279 IPC, because he drove the vehicle to a long distance with the deceased trapped in its rear side. 8. In view of the above stated position, I see no merit in the present revision petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. July 15, 2008 (ss) ( Surjit Singh ), J