IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Rev. No. 17 of 2009 Date of judgment: June 3, 2009 Nagender Pal …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Vinay Thakur, Advocate, For the Respondent : Mr.Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, J. (Oral) This revision petition under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C., is directed against the judgment dated 21.2.2009 of learned Additional Sessions Judge and judgment dated 8.8.2005 of learned trial Magistrate, whereby he has been convicted of offences, under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC. The trial Court awarded sentence of simple imprisonment for 3 months and fine of Rs.500/- for offence under Section 279 IPC and imprisonment of one month and fine of Rs,1000/- for each of the remaining two offences. Learned Sessions Judge in appeal, has held that since the petitioner has been convicted under Section 338 IPC which is a graver offence, compared to the offence under Section 337 IPC, his conviction for offence under Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - Section 338 IPC is not proper. Sentence of imprisonment for offence under Section 279 IPC has also been reduced to one month. Facts which led to the prosecution of the revision petitioner, may be noticed. On 9.4.2004, petitioner started with his car No.HP10A-0555 from Shimla for Rohru. When the car reached a place called Parahat, a Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration No. HP01-3286, appeared from the opposite direction. Petitioner was driving his car very fast and also on the wrong side. On seeing the car coming at fast speed and also on the wrong side, driver of the aforesaid Tata Sumo, took the vehicle to his extreme left-hand side, and also brought down the speed of his vehicle. The car, however, rammed into the Tata Sumo, as a result of which some persons travelling by the car of the petitioner received simple injuries and some others grievous injuries. Matter was reported to the police and the police registered the case and challaned the petitioner under Sections 279,337 and 338 IPC. During the course of trial, prosecution examined three occupants of the car, namely, PW1 Anuradha alias Anu, PW2- Ram Singh and PW8- Gopender Singh and four occupants including the driver of Tata Sumo, namely, PW3 Shri Saleem Mohammed, PW5- Pinku, PW9-Muzafardin (driver) and PW11- Rafiq Mohammed, owner of Tata Sumo. Three occupants of the car examined as prosecution witnesses turned hostile. Though all of them stated that driver of the car was not to blame for the occurrence of the accident, - 3 - yet none of them said that accident took place owing to any negligence or rashness on the part of driver of Tata Sumo, meaning thereby that they did not blame the driver of Tata Sumo either. All the four occupants of Tata Sumo, including the driver, examined as prosecution witnesses, however, stated with one voice that accident took place because of Maruti Car being driven by the petitioner appeared at fast speed and also on the wrong side and collided with Tata Sumo, which was on ascent. Testimony of the occupants of Tata Sumo, named above, is corroborated by photographs, particularly Ex.PB and Ex.PD, which clearly indicate that Tata Sumo was being driven on the left hand side of its driver but the car was being driven on the wrong side. This fact is further corroborated by the testimony of one of the occupants of the car, namely, Gopender Singh, who when being cross-examined by the prosecution with the leave of the Court, admitted that the Car appeared in front of Tata Sumo after overtaking a vehicle, that was going ahead of it. This admission also corroborates the testimony of the occupants of Tata Sumo that the car was being driven on the wrong side. In view of the above-stated position, I find no merit in this revision petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. June 3, 2009. ( Surjit Singh), J. s.