IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Revision No.62 of 2003 Decided on: July 28, 2009. Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitoner : Ms. Nidhi Chawla, Advocate, vice Mr. Anup Chitkara, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner has been convicted of offences, under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC by the learned trial Magistrate and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for offence, under Section 279 IPC, simple imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs.250/- for offence, under Section 337 IPC and simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500/- for offence, under Section 338 IPC. He filed appeal against the judgment of the trial Magistrate. Appeal has been dismissed by the Sessions Court, vide Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… judgment dated 22nd February, 2003. Now he has come to this Court invoking its revisional jurisdiction for reversal of the judgments of the trial Magistrate and the appellate Court. In the alternative, he has prayed for reduction of sentence. 2. Petitioner was tried for the aforesaid offences on police report. Case was registered against the petitioner on the basis of a report lodged by PW-7 Amar Nath. As per report, petitioner was driver on bus No.PB-12-9323, belonging to Punjab Roadways, on 18.4.1996. Bus started at 3 PM from Banikhet near Dalhousie. At 3.15 PM when it reached near village Lahad, petitioner drove it at a very fast speed, on account of which he lost control and the bus hit the hill on the left hand side of the driver. Police investigated the case. Mechanical test of the bus was conducted by PW-11 Jagir Singh. He gave report Ext. PW11/A, per which no mechanical defect was found. Brake system of the bus was alright. 3. Investigation of the case further showed that several passengers sustained simple injuries while one of the passengers, named Rani Devi, examined as PW-4, suffered grievous injury, on account of dislocation of a couple of incisors. …3… 4. During the course of trial, suggestion was thrown to one of the witnesses, namely PW-7 Amar Nath that the cause of accident was failure of brakes. No such suggestion was thrown to other witnesses of the accident, numbering five, who too were traveling by the bus, in question. 5. In his own statement, under Section 313 Cr. P.C. petitioner did not say that the cause of accident was the failure of brakes. He simply stated that he was innocent and the accident had not taken place on account of any fault on his part. 6. Trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner, as aforesaid, on the basis of evidence led by the prosecution. It disbelieved the defence plea. Sessions Court has also disbelieved the defence plea and relying upon the prosecution evidence upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioner. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Assistant Advocate General and gone through the record. 8. I find no reason to disagree with the concurrent finding of the two Courts below that the cause of accident was rash driving of the bus, by the petitioner. It is not denied by the petitioner that the …4… bus was being driven by him at the relevant time. His plea, as suggested to PW-7 Amar Nath that the cause of accident was failure of brake, is an afterthought, on the face of it, because such a suggestion was thrown for the first time only to PW-7 Amar Nath. Before PW-7 Amar Nath was examined, five other witnesses, who were travelling by the bus, had been examined. Those witnesses were examined 20 months prior to examination of PW-7 Amar Nath. No suggestion was put to any of those five witnesses that the cause of accident was failure of brake system or any other mechanical defect. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that report Ext. PW11/A cannot be used against the petitioner, because PW-11 Jagir Singh has admitted, in the cross-examination, that the report was written by the police and not by him. It is true that in the cross-examination the witness admitted that the report was written by the police people, but that does not mean that he is not the author of the report. The witness very categorically stated that he conducted mechanical test and gave report Ext.PW11/A, which is signed by him. When his statement is read, as a …5… whole, it shows that report Ext.PW11/A was scribed at his instance and on his instructions, by the police. 10. In view of the above stated position, I find no fault with the conclusion drawn by the two Courts below about the guilt of the petitioner. However, looking to the facts and the circumstances of the case as also the fact that the accident had taken place in the year 1996, I feel that ends of justice would be met in case sentence of one year simple imprisonment for offence, under Section 338 IPC is reduced to three months simple imprisonment, which is equal to the sentence of substantive imprisonment, awarded for offence, under Section 337 IPC. It is ordered accordingly. 11. With the aforesaid modification in the sentence for offence, under Section 338 IPC, revision petition is dismissed. July 28, 2009 (ss) ( Surjit Singh ), J.