IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 137 of 2004 Date of Decision 26th February,2011 __________________________________________________________ Deshveer ….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. Anup Chitkara, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General with Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy A.G. __________________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J (oral) The petitioner challenges his conviction of the two Courts below for offences under Section 279 and 338 IPC. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of ` 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one month under Section 279 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 `1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month under Section 338 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that PW2 Gurbachan Singh was injured by jeep bearing No. HP-21-0159, being driven by the petitioner herein. After the accident, the injured was taken to hospital and thereafter treated at PGI Chandigarh, where he underwent surgery as testified by PW4 Dr. A. Pathak, Senior Resident in the Department of Neuro Surgery. 3. I need not go to the facts of the case in detail as these have been discussed in detail by the learned trial Court and the findings on these facts have been upheld by the learned Appellate Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that site plan Ext.PW12/A as also the photographs Ext.P1 to Ext.P5 contradict the oral testimony of the witnesses namely PW2 Gurbachan Singh, PW8 Partap Singh and PW11 Raj Kumar, as relied upon by the learned trial Court as also by the learned Appellate Court. One of the points urged before the learned Appellate Court is that since the road was wide enough and at the site of the accident four vehicles could cross at one time, but in order to avoid the collusion with some other vehicle, the petitioner had driven the vehicle on kacha portion (unmettalled) of the road as such it was not rash or negligent driving which could be attributed to him. This submission was rejected by the learned Appellate Court. 5. After having reappreciated the evidence with the help of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned Additional Advocate General, I cannot persuade myself 3 to hold that the findings arrived at by the two Courts below are perverse. I also notice that the petitioner was charged for offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 201 IPC, but after careful consideration of the entire case, the learned trial Court acquitted the petitioner for offences under Sections 337 and 201 IPC. 6. Coming to the question of sentencing, the case has now been put up before this Court after a period of 11 years since the occurrence of accident. The revision petition was instituted in the year 2004. It is well settled law that in criminal jurisprudence mere delay or passage of time would not entitle the accused to reduction in the sentence. However, considering the fact that PW2 Gurbachan Singh has only suffered injuries, it would be in the interest of justice that sentence of imprisonment is set aside. It is directed that the petitioner herein shall deposit a sum of ` 35,000/- before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur on or before 31st May, 2011. On such deposit being made, this amount shall be disbursed to the injured or his legal heirs.This amount shall not be deducted from any compensation which has been paid to the injured aforesaid under the Motor Vehicles Act or in any other case which he may have been instituted against the petitioner. It is further directed that in case the petitioner herein does not deposit the amount before the date, as directed, he shall serve out the sentence as imposed by the learned trial Court. It is directed accordingly. Petition stands disposed of. February 26th, 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud), ms Judge 4