IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Rev. No. 4 of 2004. Date of Decision:11.8.2010. _______________________________________________ Surinder Singh. ….Appellant. Versus. State of H.P. ….Respondent. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1?No. For the appellant : Mr.R.K.Gautam Sr. Advocate with Mr.Mehar Chand, Advocate. For Respondent. : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). The petitioner is aggrieved by the concurrent findings of both the Courts below sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and pay fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 279 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code. The brief facts of the case are that on 9.4.2000 PW1 Nakul Dev made a statement Ext.PW1/A before PW8 ASI Raj Kumar, Police Station, Barsar that he was driving Maruti Van bearing registration No. HP 33-9145. Nikka Ram Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?yes. 2 along with other members of his family was going to a temple situated at village Kehalwin, District Una. When they reached near Barsar, the offending vehicle which was truck bearing registration No. HP-24-2937 being driven by the petitioner in a rash and negligent manner, hit the Van which was parked on the one side of the bridge. The Van turned turtle and fell into the Nullah. The complainant received injuries. Smt. Anita Devi and her daughter Kumari Suman also sustained multiple injuries in this accident which have been proved by Ext.PW6/A and Ext.PW6/B. The learned trial Court on the basis of the prosecution evidence, convicted the petitioner herein and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment as aforesaid. To reach this conclusion, the learned court relied upon the evidence of PW1 Nakul Dev who has corroborated the statement Ext.PW1/A recorded by the police under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and as also identified the accused in the Court. He has also stated in his evidence that the truck was being driven at a fast speed and struck against the Van which was dragged for some distance for some time. PW2 Nikka Ram was one of the occupants of the Van has supported the prosecution version that he was going to pay obeisance at temple in a village Kehalwin and the truck hit the Maruti Van in which he along with other passengers were travelling which Van was dragged for some distance by the truck. This finding has been affirmed by the learned appellate Court. 3 Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the evidence of the prosecution itself does not support the case of conviction as the brakes of the truck were not functional. I cannot accept this contention as it is not proved on the record by any evidence. In these circumstances, I hold that the case of the petitioner herein that the accident occurred because of failure of brakes/mechanical fault cannot be accepted. The accident is of the year 2000. It is a notorious fact that the accidents have become rampant and danger to innocent drivers and pedestrians. In these circumstances, the Supreme Court has time and again reminded the court that the sentence should be stern. The occupants of the Van sustained minor injuries and that the interest of justice would be served in case they compensated for the injuries sustained in the accident. In these circumstances, the sentence of imprisonment is set aside. It is directed that the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs. 15000/- i.e. 5,000/- each to the complainant, Smt. Anita Devi and Km. Suman within a period of three months from today. This amount shall be deposited in the learned trial Court within the aforesaid period. On deposit of such amount, the learned trial Court shall ensure the payment of this amount to injured Smt.Anita Devi and Km. Suman. In case of non deposit of amount, the sentence of imprisonment shall revive and shall be executed faithfully by the learned trial Court. The petition is accordingly disposed 4 of. Bail bonds furnished by the petitioner shall stand discharged. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. August 11, 2010(R)