IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Criminal Revision No.183 of 2003. Date of decision: 02.07.2010. Mohd.Imtiyaj …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.R.K. Gautam, Senior Advocate with Mr.Mehar Chand, Advocate. For the Respondent: Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud,J. The petitioner was charged for offences under Sections 279, 337, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 181 and 187 of the Motor Vehicle Act. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 6.2.1997 at about 5.15 P.M., PW-3 Bhag Singh and PW-6 Sohan Lal were returning from V.M.T. Factory when a Maruti Van being driven by the petitioner at a high speed, hit Sohan Lal, who according to the prosecution suffered injuries on his head and body. The wind screen of Maruti Van was broken in the accident. Sohan 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 Lal was taken to Gagan Nursing Home and the case was reported to the police. PW-11, Yoginder Singh Head Constable, went to the spot and recorded statement of Satish Kumar Ex.PW-2/A, on the basis of which First Information Report Ex.PW-12/A was registered. Investigation was conducted by Head Constable Yoginder Singh, who prepared site plan and took into possession broken pieces of glass from the site of accident in presence of Satish Kumar and Bhag Singh PW-3. 3. PW-1, Dr.A.K. Tiwari, examined the injured on 6.2.1997 around about 10.40 P.M. He found small sharp cut injury on the thumb of left hand and on its index finger, which was ½ cm. He proved on record Medico Legal Certificate Ex.PW-1/B. The other two witnesses Sh.Satish Kumar PW-2, Sh.Bhag Singh PW-5 and Sh.Sohan Lal PW-6 are star witnesses of the prosecution. 4. PW-6 Sohan Lal states that he was working in V.M.T. Factory. On 6.2.1997 at around 5.15 P.M. when he was returning from the Factory, he was hit by a Maruti Van being driven by the petitioner at a fast speed. The result of the accident was that the wind screen of the Van was shattered and he was dragged 15- 20 feet before it stopped. He says that he was taken for medical treatment, from where he was referred to PGI, Chandigarh. He identified the petitioner in the Court. PW-2 Satish Kumar states that at around 5.15 P.M. he was coming back from the Factory and was on the main Kalka-Baddi Road. He saw a Van being driven by 3 the petitioner at a fast speed, which hit PW-6 Sohan Lal, who was dragged 15-20 feet. The evidence of PW-3 Bhag Singh is also on this line. On the evidence on record the learned trial Court convicted the petitioner herein to simple imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default further simple imprisonment of one month for offences under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code, three months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-, in default further simple imprisonment of fifteen days for offences under Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 5. Learned appellate Court has affirmed the judgment and sentence of the learned trial Court. Both the Courts below have held that accidents have become rampant because of rash and negligent driving at this menace required to be curved. No doubt this is the factual situation, but this cannot be used in every case and each incident/case is to be judged also from facts. 6. Looking to the case put up by the prosecution what I find is that no attempt has been made to establish or prove that the complainant/injured was infact referred to the PGI or taken there for treatment. The other part that the injured was dragged 15-20 feet also cannot be accepted as this is against logic. He would not have suffered minor injuries if that had been so. There is no evidence on the record to establish that he was infact dragged for some 4 distance as alleged. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the submissions made by the prosecution relate to an incident which is inherently improbable, acquittal can be the only result. 7. The rule falsus in uno falsus in omnibus cannot be applied. There may be improvement and exoneration in the statement but that does not render the entire evidence as unreliable. However, so far as the sentence imposed is concerned, looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the sentence of imprisonment imposed is set aside and the sentence of fine is maintained. Bail bonds furnished by the petitioner are discharged. July 2, 2010. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.