1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 61 of 2001. Judgment reserved on: 02.07.2008. Date of Decision: July 7th, 2008. ____________________________________________________________ Satwinder Singh. Appellant. Versus State of H.P. Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant : Mr. Naresh Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. ______________________________________________________________ Surjnder Singh, J. The petitioner a truck driver, failed in both the courts below to secure his acquittal in a case punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, as such, he filed the present revision petition, on the grounds that the courts below came to the wrong conclusion from the evidence adduced on record which has caused miscarriage of justice. Heard and gone through the record of the case. In brief, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that on 27.1.93 the petitioner herein, was driving the said truck on a public way and was coming from Una side, when it reached near the place known as Badhala, a tractor No.GTH-4116 came from the opposite side with a loaded trolley which was driven by PW2 Ravinder Kumar. It is alleged that the petitioner while driving his truck rashly and negligently hit the said tractor on its middle portion by taking the truck to its wrong side of the road and due to this collision, the driver of the tractor PW2 Ravinder Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Kumar and a labourer PW1 Tara Chand sitting therein sustained simple injuries and another labourer Chanan Singh alias Jhallu sustained the grievous injuries. The injured were removed to the District hospital Una. Chanan Singh aforesaid was referred to PGI, where he died on account of the injuries sustained in the accident. The tractor was badly damaged. After the accident the petitioner tried to reverse his truck and fled away, but the right front tyre of the truck got a cut and got burst, due to which he could not succeed. The police was informed about the accident. On the basis of the statement of injured Tara Chand FIR Ex.PW7/B was registered. The police prepared site plan Ex.PW7/D and took both the vehicles into possession alongwith their documents. The broken articles of both the vehicles vide memo Ex.PW3/C and the medical certificates of the injured and the postmortem report of Shri Chanan Singh were taken into possession. The mechanical examination of the truck was got conducted from the police mechanic PW6 Swaroop Chand. The report is Ex.PW6/A. The photographs Exts.P1 to P4 were also taken showing the condition of both the vehicles after the accident. After recording the statements of the witnesses and on completion of the challan it was presented in the court for trial of petitioner under the aforesaid sections. The revision-petitioner was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove its case, the prosecution had relied upon the statements of injured labourer PW1 Tara Chand, tractor driver PW2 Ravinder Kumar, PW6 Swaroop Chand Mechanic and PW7 Sub Inspector Om Parkash, the Investigating Officer. Though the respondent admitted that he was driving the truck at the relevant time in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., but he alleged that the said accident took place due to the rash and negligent 3 driving of the tractor driver. However, he did not examine any defence witness. At the end of trial, the petitioner was convicted for the aforesaid offences and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months each for the offences under Section 279 and 337 and six months for the offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, which was challenged by him in Cr. Appeal No.5 of 97, before the learned Sessions Judge, Una. After reappraising the evidence on record, vide his detailed judgment dated 1.5.2001, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the width of the road on the spot was sufficiently wide, the tractor was being driven by PW2 Ravinder Kumar on his extreme left side of the road, whereas the petitioner herein had, driven the truck rashly by taking it to his extreme right side which was his wrong side and hit in the middle portion of the tractor as depicted in the site plan Ex.PW7/D and shown in the photographs. Further PW1 Tara Chand and PW2 Ravinder Kumar vividly stated and proved the case of the prosecution that the accident had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner and also that after hitting the tractor, which was in a normal speed. The petitioner, truck-driver, wanted to run away alongwith his vehicle for which he reversed the truck but in the meanwhile the front tyre of the truck got burst and he could not flee away. The learned Sessions Judge also noticed the statement of Sub Inspector Om Parkash, whereby he proved the site plan showing the position of both the vehicles, which was not disputed by the petitioner in his cross- examination. On the above findings and observations, which were borne out from the record, the learned Sessions Judge affirmed the findings of the guilt and sentence of the petitioner passed by the learned trial court. The 4 same grounds which were taken in appeal before the learned Sessions Judge have been taken in the instant revision petition and the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the tractor was in 3rd gear and PW4 stated that the maximum speed of the tractor in this gear could be upto 35 k.m. per hour, further that truck was in the back gear, therefore, the prosecution story becomes doubtful. Hence, both the courts below have committed an error of law while assessing the evidence on record. In order to find out the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment passed by the courts below, the record of both the courts was requisitioned. PW1 Tara Chand and PW2 tractor driver Ravinder Kumar have categorically stated that the petitioner was driving his truck rashly and negligently. On seeing him, PW 2 tractor driver took his tractor towards the extreme left side of the road but the truck dashed against his tractor. PW6 Swaroop Lal Mechanic found during the mechanical examination of the truck that there was a cut in the front right tyre of truck, as mentioned in his report Ex. PW6/A. According to PW1 Tara Chand accused had tried to run away alongwith truck after hitting the tractor, but its tyre got burst and could not succeed. This part of the statement is not challenged in cross- examination. Thus it is apparent that the truck driver had tried to reverse and separate the truck from the tractor and run away, while doing so, the front tyre got burst because of the cut in the tyre on account of hitting it with a tractor, that is why the truck was found engaged in the reverse gear, which fact does not shake the very foundation of the prosecution case rather lends further strength to it. In the light of these proved facts, the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner looks fallacious. Further, PW2 Ravinder Kumar has stated that his tractor trolley was full of load and he was driving his tractor at the speed of about 10 K.M. per hour. Thus it is manifest from the evidence on record that the 5 petitioner was rash and negligent in driving the truck, which caused the accident. He failed to exercise due care and diligence to avert the accident, which ordinarily a cautious person would have done. It is also admitted that PW1 Tara Chand, PW2 tractor Driver and deceased Chanan Singh alias Jhalla had sustained grievous injuries and later he died. While appreciating the evidence, in my opinion, both the courts below did not commit any error, which can be said to have caused the miscarriage of justice, as alleged. The findings of guilt by both the courts are based on the proper appreciation of facts adduced on record. Hence, I do not find any illegality and impropriety in the judgment and sentence passed by the learned courts below, accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. The petitioner is hereby ordered to surrender before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, on or before 31.7.2008, to serve out the sentence, failing which the learned trial court shall resort to the coercive method to procure his presence and commit him to prison to serve out the sentence passed. Send down the records. (Surinder Singh) Judge. July 7th, 2008. (Pds)