HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.R. No. : 74 of 2004 Decided on: 19.10.2010 Prabhat Singh ……… Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ………Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mr.Ashok Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr.Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General. V.K. Ahuja, J.(Oral): This is a criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner under Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the Court of learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court (Additional Sessions Judge), Hamirpur, H.P., dated 27.4.2004, vide which he upheld the judgment passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barsar, dated 4.6.2002, convicting and sentencing the petitioner under Sections 279 and 201 of the IPC as under: Section 279 to undergo RI for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for one month. Section 201 to undergo RI for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for 7 days. ___________________________________________ Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 11.2.2000, at about 3.00 p.m., a telephonic message was received at Police Station, Barsar that a bus and a jeep have collided near village Sohari. Rapat No.17 was registered accordingly and thereafter Shri Satpal Singh went to the spot and recorded the statement of the complainant Sunil Kumar in which he alleged that he was driving the jeep No.HP-02-8805 and was taking passengers from Joure Amb to Baba Balak Nath in the said Jeep. Around 12.15 noon, when he reached near Village Sohari, a private bus bearing registration NO.HP-36- 3815 came from the opposite side on a high speed. Seeing the bus, the complainant took the Jeep on the left side of the road and still the bus struck against the Jeep. Resultantly, the bumper, bonnet etc. were damaged. After the accident, the driver of the bus reversed the bus and fled away from the spot. No occupant of the Jeep suffered any injury. It was alleged that the accident had taken place due to rash or negligent driving of the bus driver. On this statement, a case was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed before the learned trial Court, who tried the petitioner for the aforesaid offences leading to his conviction and sentence, as detailed above. On appeal, the said conviction and sentence was affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Hamirpur. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 4. On appraisal of the evidence led by the prosecution, it is clear that to substantiate their case, the prosecution had examined 11 witnesses. The complainant Sunil - 3 - Kumar was examined as PW-1 and there is another eye witness, namely, Anil Kumar, who has been examined as PW-2. PW-2 Anil Kumar is one of the occupant, who had supported the statement of the complainant on all material particulars. Apart from this, there is statement of the Mechanic Achhar Kumar, who has been examined as PW-3 in regard to the damage to the vehicle and the report given by him is Ext.PW-3/A. Another Mechanic was examined as PW-7, namely, Jagmohan Singh, who also gave his report in regard to the examination of the bus, which is Ext.PW-7/A. The statement of the complainant and PW-2 Anil Kumar have been relied upon by the learned trial Court and it had come to the conclusion that the bus was being driven rashly or negligently by the petitioner and it struck against the Jeep which was damaged. Those findings of fact have been affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on appeal. 5. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner had tried to dispute these findings by submitting that the petitioner was not driving the bus in question or that the vehicle was not involved in the accident. However, a perusal of the statement of PW-1 Sunil Kumar, complainant, clearly shows that he had identified the bus driver and has clearly stated that he was driving the vehicle in question. His statement was not shattered in cross examination. The identity of the petitioner as driver of the bus was never disputed in his cross examination. A specific suggestion was also put that the accused was driving the bus slowly, meaning thereby that this fact was not disputed that the accused/petitioner was - 4 - driving the bus at the relevant time. PW-2 Anil Kumar had also stated that the bus was being driven rashly or negligently by the accused present in Court. His statement was also not shattered in cross examination to hold that the identity of the bus driver i.e. the petitioner was not established. 6. Apart from the above, the powers of this Court in a revision petition are limited and these can be exercised by the court in re-appreciating the evidence if it was found that there has been miscarriage of justice. I may make a reference to a decision of this Court in Raj Kumar verus State of H.P., 2000(2)Shim.L.C.422, in which the following observations were made: “That the Courts below have rightly held the petitioner guilty of the offence and the findings recorded by both the Courts are based on sound appreciation of the entire evidence on record adduced by the parties. Though this Court is not obliged to re-appraise and re- assess the evidence again in criminal revision application about the fact whether the petitioner was rash or negligent in driving the vehicle resulting the deaths of the two children by crushing their heads who were travelling in HRTC bus alongwith their parents. It is by now settled by the Supreme Court that in accidental deaths in which the driver of the offending vehicle is found grossly rash and negligent in driving the vehicle, the Court should not lightly award the sentence to such an accused who is responsible for taking the precious life of a citizen. In this view of the matter, no leniency can be shown to the petitioner in awarding the sentence.” 7. Nothing was pointed out that there was any miscarriage of justice in the judgments passed by the courts below and as such there can be no reappraisal of the evidence. Both the courts have observed that the petitioner - 5 - was driving the bus, which fact has not been disputed in evidence. It has also come up on record that the petitioner ran away from the spot after the accident. A perusal of the photographs also shows that the damage was caused to the right side of the Jeep which rules out the possibility that the Jeep had struck with the tree on the left side, as suggested in cross examination of the witnesses. 8. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the learned Appellate Court holding the petitioner guilty under Sections 279 and 201 IPC are liable to be affirmed, which are affirmed accordingly. 9. Now, coming to the sentence imposed upon the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a married man, who was of the age of 39 years in the year 2002 when he was held guilty by the learned trial Court and is having three children. No previous conviction has been alleged against the petitioner. Therefore, I am of the opinion that, in view of the fact that no passenger suffered any injury, simple or grievous, and the petitioner has been facing the trial since 2002, the ends of justice would be met in case the substantive sentence imposed upon him is set aside and the fine imposed is enhanced. I accordingly, accept the present revision petition and set aside the conviction and substantive sentence imposed upon the petitioner. The petitioner is fined under Sections 279 and 201 IPC as under: Section 279 IPC: Rs.10,000/- Section 201 IPC: Rs.1,000/-. - 6 - The fine will be deposited by the petitioner within a period of 60 days from today before the learned trial Court, failing which, the petitioner shall suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months under Section 279 of the IPC and for one month under Section 201 of the IPC. A copy of this judgment alongwith the record of the case be sent to the learned trial Court, who shall send intimation in regard to the deposit of the fine by the petitioner, failing which, steps shall be taken that the petitioner suffers the sentence imposed, in default. The revision petition is allowed to this extent accordingly. October 19, 2010. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge