IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Criminal Revision No. 95 of 2004 Date of Decision: 21st September, 2010 __________________________________________________________ Jaswant Singh ….Petitioner. Versus State of HP ….Respondent. ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. ___________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. J.R. Thakur, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General with Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J (oral). The petitioner challenges his conviction under Sections 279 and 304-A by the two Courts below. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 700/- under Section 279 IPC and further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 5000/- under Section 304-A IPC. In default of payment of fine, he was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five months. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 28.6.1999 a report was received by Police Station, Hamirpur from the President, Gram 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?Yes. 2 Panchayat, Karer, who informed about the death of a person in a bus accident. H.C. Daljit Singh alongwith C. Jagdish Chand and Sanjiv Kumar proceeded to the spot of accident and statement of Jagdish Chand was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. (Ext.PW1/A). He has stated that he alongwith Shankar Dass had boarded the bus from Salauni in which Sita Ram and deceased Shankar were also traveling. At Karer Shankar got down from the bus. Thereafter it is alleged that the petitioner drove it in a very rash and negligent manner at a very fast speed, crushing him under the right side of rear tyre. He succumbed to the injuries on the spot. PW1 Jagdish Chand stated in his evidence that he had boarded the bus being driven by the accused at Salauni. Sita Ram and Ishwar Dass were also traveling in that bus. Near Karer, he alighted alongwith Ishwar Dass and Sita Ram. Shankar Dass deceased alighted from the front door of the bus. He heard cries that Shankar Dass had been crushed under the tyre of the bus. PW10 Sita Ram who has corroborated this evidence, says that PW1 Jagdish Chand and he alighted from the rear door whereas Shankar Dass had got down from the front door of the bus. PW2 Dina Nath, President of Gram Panchayat Karer who arrived at the spot stated that while Ishwar Dass was crossing the bus from its front side, the petitioner started the bus and crushed the deceased under the tyres. PW5 Ashok Kumar was also present on the spot at the time when the accident took place. PW9 H.C. Daulat Singh prepared the site plan Ext.PW9/A. PW8 Purshotam Lal examined the bus for any mechanical defect, but he found that it was in perfect order and issued report Ext.PW8/A. In the entirety of circumstances, the learned trial Court convicted the petitioner. 3. In appeal, one of the points urged is that the accident had taken place because Ishwar Dass was intoxicated and he himself struck against the bus. After considering the entirety of the case, the learned 3 Appellate Court held that the witnesses have corroborated the accident. On the question of deceased consuming the liquor, the Court holds: “19. …….Though there is no evidence that the deceased had consumed liquor at the time of accident, yet if the narration qua it given by Amar Nath is taken as a gospel truth, even then it would be impossible to conclude that the deceased himself struck against the bus. Rather, evidence of the prosecution as discussed also reflects that front portion of the bus hit Shankar Dass and thereafter, he was firstly crushed by front tyres and thereafter, came under the rear tyre and died instant death. ……..” The appeal was accordingly dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and gone through the record. 5. Learned counsel has urged a number of grounds including the fact that there is no eye witness to the accident as admitted by both the witnesses who alighted from the rear door had not witnessed the occurrence. He also submits that the manner in which it is stated that accident had taken place does not appeal to ordinary reason. 6. I cannot accept this submission made on behalf of the petitioner. What I find from the evidence is that the deceased has been hit and crushed in a manner that the skull was crushed and the brain spilled out. There is no perversity in the appreciation of evidence. The facts are telling and revealing. This revision petition is dismissed. 7. In Dalbir Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2000) 5 SCC 82 the Supreme Court as also this Court in State of H.P. Vs. Girdhari Lal, 2007 Cri. L.J. 4347 & State of H.P. vs. Mast Ram 2010 (1) S.L.J. (HP) 246 held that no leniency should be shown in such cases and deterrent punishment should be awarded for such offence. The interest of justice would be served in case the sentence of imprisonment under Section 304- 4 A IPC is reduced to one year. But the sentence as imposed by the trial Court under Section 279 IPC shall remain same. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. Bail bonds of the petitioner stand cancelled. A direction is issued to the learned trial Court to ensure that the sentence is executed forthwith. Petition stands disposed of. Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court immediately. (Dev Darshan Sud) Judge September 21, 2010(ms)