IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 14 of 2004 Date of Decision: 19th August, 2010 __________________________________________________________ Baldev Ram ….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. Ajay Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondent: Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. R.K. Thakur, Asstt. Advocate General. __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J (oral). The petitioner challenges his conviction under Sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code for causing grievous injuries to Purshotam Lal, since deceased. 2. The case against the petitioner is that on the date of the accident he was driving a Matador in a rash and negligent manner and hit Purshotam Lal, who was taken to the hospital in the same Matador by the persons present there. The statements of PW2 Piare Lal and PW3 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 Girdhari Lal were clear and unequivocal when they established the identity of the petitioner, as driver of the vehicle and had been identified by them in Court. One of the defences taken by the petitioner was that the deceased was a mentally retarded person who was walking in the centre of road and came suddenly in front of the vehicle and as such there was no fault on the part of the driver. But perusal of the evidence, especially Ext.PW9/A, which is the spot map, clearly shows that the accident had taken place on the extreme left side of the road meaning thereby that the defence put up by the petitioner was nothing, but an after thought. 3. PW7 Dr. Vineet Aggarwal has proved the Medico Legal Certificate Ext.PW7/A testifying the injuries received by Purshotam Lal (deceased). 4. These findings were affirmed by the learned Appellate Court. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is no evidence on record to establish the identity of the petitioner or that the petitioner was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. 6. I cannot accept these contentions. The evidence of PW2 Piare Lal and PW3 Girdhari Lal is clear and unequivocal and they were the eye witnesses of the accident. However, so far as the question of rashness is concerned, site map PW9/A speaks volumes of the manner in which the accident was caused. In these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 7. On the question of sentencing, the substantive sentence of imprisonment is set aside with the condition that the petitioner herein shall deposit a sum of Rs. 30,000/- before the learned trial Court i.e. 3 Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kangra, District Kangra at Dharamshala within a period of three months from today. On deposit of such amount, the learned Court below shall direct a notice to be issued to the legal representatives of the injured Purshotam Lal (since deceased) and the amount shall be released to those persons by the Court. It is further directed that in case of non-deposit of this amount, the sentence shall revive which shall be duly executed by the learned trial Court. Copy of this order be sent to the learned trial Court forthwith. Petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. August 19th, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud) (ms) Judge