IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No.176 of 2004 Date of decision : November 12, 2010 Ramesh Chand …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. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Present revision petition has been filed to seek reversal of judgment of conviction and sentence of the revision petitioner, for offences, under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, ordered by the trial Magistrate vide judgment dated 18th December, 2001 and also judgment, dated 10th September, 2004, of Sessions Court, whereby appeal of the revision petitioner against the aforesaid judgment of the trial Magistrate has been dismissed. 2. Case of the prosecution, which led to the conviction and sentence of the revision petitioner, may be stated. On 17th February, 1995 at 4.30 p.m., revision petitioner was in driver’s seat of TATA-608 vehicle, bearing Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… registration No.HP-33-1673. Vehicle appeared at village Chambi from the side of village Dhanotu. A girl, aged about 10 years, named Meena, was going along that road. She was keeping to her left. Vehicle was being driven by the petitioner in a rash or negligent manner. His vehicle hit the above-named girl, as a result of which she fell. She was rushed to the hospital by the petitioner himself, in his aforesaid vehicle. At the hospital, the girl died. 3. Matter was reported to the police by Sukh Ram, the father of the girl, by making statement, under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Ex. PA. Case was formally registered, on the basis of that statement, vide FIR Ex. PW-9/A. During the course of investigation, three witnesses, namely PW-3 Tara Chand, PW-4 Jalam Singh and PW-7 Roshan Lal, claimed to have witnessed the accident. 4. Police, on completion of investigation, filed report, under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the petitioner. Substance of accusation was put to the petitioner. He pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined the above-named three eye-witnesses and also the doctor, who conducted postmortem, namely PW-6 Dr. B.S. Verma, to prove the case. 5. Trial Court concluded that the petitioner was guilty of offences of rash or negligent driving, endangering human life and personal safety of others and while so driving of causing death of a minor girl, named Meena. …3… Consequently, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced, as aforesaid. His appeal against conviction and sentence has been dismissed by the Sessions Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Assistant Advocate General representing the respondent-State and gone through the record. 7. Petitioner does not deny that he was driving the vehicle at the relevant time and an accident took place, in which a girl, named Meena, died, but his plea is that some children were playing by the side of the road, near the site of the accident and that when the vehicle was passing by the site where children were playing, the girl, all of a sudden, ran to cross the road and got hit by the vehicle. 8. Three eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution, in fact, do not prove that the cause of the accident was rash driving of the vehicle by the petitioner. 9. PW-3 Tara Chand though did state that he had seen the accident taking place, at the same time when confronted with his statement, under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he admitted that he had not stated to the police that the accident had been witnessed by him. Thus, he is contradicted with his statement, under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with regard to his testimony that he saw the accident taking place, with his own eyes. …4… 10. PW-4 Jalam Singh stated that he had already crossed the site of the accident, when the accident took place. He also admitted that his back was towards the site of the accident, when the girl was knocked down. He stated that the vehicle came to a halt, at the very site of the accident, which fact gives a lie to the prosecution case that the vehicle was being driven at excessive speed. PW-7 Roshan Lal stated that the accident took place when the girl tried to cross the road, all of a sudden. He also stated that several children, including the girl, were playing by the side of the road, when the truck reached there. 11. Learned Assistant Advocate General submits that the site plan belies the defence plea. Site plan is Ex. PW-10/A. A reading of the site plan shows that the accident had taken place on the right side of pucca portion of the road. The total width of pucca portion of road is ten feet. Witnesses have stated that the girl was paying on the left side of the road. However, the accident is shown to have taken place at point ‘B’, which is on the right side of pucca portion of the road. Now, if the girl was playing on the left side of the road and the accident took place on the right hand side, it can legitimately be presumed that the girl, while playing, tried to cross the road, all of a sudden, as alleged by the petitioner. There cannot be any other explanation for the girl being hit on the right side of the …5… road, when she was playing on left side on kutcha portion, than the one offered by the petitioner. 12. In view of the abovestated position, revision petition is allowed, judgments of the two Courts below, holding the petitioner guilty and convicting him of offences, under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, are set aside and he is acquitted. Petition stands disposed of, accordingly. November 12, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J