IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revison No. 71 of 2003. Date of Decision: March 22, 2010. _______________________________________________ Surjeet Singh ….Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ….Respondent. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? yes For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. ________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral) This revision has been filed by the petitioner who was convicted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan for offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, whereby the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for offence under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code, simple imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, in default, simple imprisonment for one month each for non-payment of fine for both the offences. 2. The petitioner appealed to the Court of Sessions, which on the basis of the evidence on record and more especially the evidence of PW-6 Surinder Singh, who was an eye witness to the 1Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? yes occurrence, dismissed the appeal, upholding the sentence under Section 304-A IPC, but setting aside the conviction and consequently the sentence under Section 279 IPC. The petitioner has now preferred this revision against judgment of conviction of the two Courts below. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner urges that the Courts below have not correctly appreciated the evidence on record and that there was nothing in the evidence to link the petitioner with the offences, as charged. He submits that the Courts below have appreciated the evidence and arrived at a conclusion which no reasonable individual can reach. 5. The brief facts necessary for the decision of this revision petition are that on 28.3.1997, truck No. HR-02A-6297 which was being driven by the petitioner was involved in the accident with scooter No. HP-07-0890. The truck struck against the scooter and the driver and the pillion rider were crushed to death under the wheels of the truck. 6. PW-6 Surinder Singh is an eye witness to this incident. His testimony is important. He states that on 28.3.1997, he was driving his own jeep No. HIM-9553 and was travelling from Barog to Solan. It was raining on that day. He says that the accidented scooter No. HP-07-0890 was proceeding in front of his jeep. The speed of the scooter was about 10-15 kilometers per hour. When they reached near Hotel Government Paradise, truck No. HR-02A-5297 which was coming from the opposite direction and was being driven at a high speed on the wrong side of the road, struck against the scooter where the truck was trying to overtake a canter, with the result that both the driver and pillion rider of the scooter, fell on the road and were hit by the wheels of the truck. The truck then hit the side of the mountain. The driver tried to reverse it and dragged both the driver and the pillion rider of the scooter alongwith the truck. On seeing this, the driver fled away and this witness thereafter immediately reported the matter to the police. He states on oath that the accident is the result of rash and negligent act on the part of the truck driver. In cross-examination, he states that the road and the place at which the accident took place, is quite wide and 4/5 vehicles can easily drive side by side. The deceased scooterist had crossed him near Barog. To another question in cross-examination, he replied that it was the scooter, which was being driven in a very slow speed. There was no other person present at the time when the accident took place. The suggestion in cross- examination that the scooter was being driven at a fast speed because the scooterist was in hurry to reach Shimla, was answered in the negative. PW-7 Harinder Thakur has proved on record Ext. P-I to Ext. P-10, which are the photographs of the side of the accident depicting in graphic detail the gory accident. In his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner states that at the time of the accident, it was raining, there was thick fog on the spot and that the scooterist was driving the scooter in a zigzag manner on a slippery road. The scooter struck against the truck because of the negligence of the scooter driver. 7. DW-1 Narayan Singh has been examined in evidence. He states in the evidence that he was driving truck No. HIS-1379. The scooterist overtook him. The scooter was being driven at a fast speed as a result of which it skid on the road and struck against the truck. In other words, he has tried to show that it is not the fault on the part of the truck driver, but that of the scooter driver. DW-2 Shri Satpal states that he was driving truck No. HR-37-2160, which was loaded with rice and was coming from Jagadhari to Shimla. Two curves before the site of the accident, the scooter had overtaken him. It was being driven at a very fast speed. The scooterist suddenly applied brakes and that was the reason why it skid and hit the truck. Both these witnesses admit that the road and the site of the accident was quite broad/wide, where 3/4 vehicles could pass at the same time. There is nothing in their statements to show that they actually witnessed the accident. All they say is that the scooterist had overtaken their vehicles some distance away from the site of the accident and the scooter was allegedly being driven at a very fast speed. The only eye witness to the occurrence is PW-6 Surinder Singh. The credibility of his testimony has not in any manner been shaken in cross-examination. He has described the accident in graphic detail. The evidence of this witness is clear and cogent and points out to nothing but the rashness and negligence of the petitioner. Hitting the scooter and then dragging both the scooterist and the pillion rider points out to nothing but the rash and negligent acts on the part of the truck driver. There is nothing to suggest that the two defence witnesses DW-1 Narayan Singh and DW-2 Satpal were also present on the spot and they had witnessed the accident. The learned Courts below have correctly appreciated the evidence, which has been brought on the record of the case. The learned First Appellate Court has rightly placed reliance on the judgment in Dalbir Singh Versus State of Haryana, AIR 2000 SC 1677. I am unable to persuade myself that what is urged on behalf of the petitioner is the correct factual position. I do not find any perversity in the evidence appreciated by the Courts below or that the facts as narrated by PW-6 Surinder Singh do not depict the correct factual position. 8. In Dalbir Singh versus State of Haryana, (2000) 5 SCC 82, the Supreme Court held: “1. When automobiles have become death traps any leniency shown to drivers who are found guilty of rash driving would be at the risk of further escalation of road accidents. All those who are manning the steering of automobiles, particularly professional drivers, must be kept under constant reminders of their duty to adopt atmost care and also of the consequences befalling them in cases of dereliction. One of the most effective ways of keeping such drivers under mental vigil is to maintain a deterrent element in the sentencing sphere. Any latitude shown to them in that sphere would tempt them to make driving frivolous and a frolic.” (pp.84-85) This ratio has been subsequently followed by this Court in State of H.P versus Girdhari Lal, 2007 Cri. L.J 4347. 9. I do not find any merit in this revision, which is accordingly dismissed. However, considering the long pendancy of this petition, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to eighteen months. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan shall ensure the execution of this sentence forthwith. Bail bonds furnished by the petitioner shall stand cancelled. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. March 22,2010 (HL)