IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No.133 of 2004 Date of decision : November 11, 2010 Manoj Kumar …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. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated 13th July, 2004 of learned Sessions Court, whereby his appeal against the judgment dated 17th January, 2003 of trial Magistrate, by which he was convicted of offences, under Sections 279, 337, 338 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay fine of `1,000/-, for offence, under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay fine of `500/-, for offence, under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of `1,000/-, for offence, under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code and Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… to pay fine of `500/- for offence, under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, has been dismissed. 2. A case was registered against the revision petitioner at Police Station Barsar, on the basis of statement, under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Ex. PW-1/A, made by PW-1 Mohinder Kumar. As per statement Ex. PW-1/A, Mohinder Kumar started with his Trolla Jeep No.HP-21-0906, on 16th November, 2000, from village Mehre for Bassi. When around 1.30 p.m., he reached a place called Jol, petitioner appeared from opposite direction, driving his Trolla Jeep No.HP-21-0412, at a very fast speed. Also, the Trolla Jeep of the petitioner was being driven on the wrong side. Mohinder Kumar stopped his aforesaid Trolla Jeep, but petitioner’s Jeep rammed into his stationary Jeep. After hitting Mohinder Kumar’s Jeep, petitioner’s Jeep got pushed behind and the petitioner and two other occupants of his Jeep fell off on the road. They sustained injuries. One of the occupants, named Deepak Kumar, sustained grievous injury, on account of loss of a tooth. Police was informed at 2.10 p.m. ASI Raj Kumar (PW-7) reached the spot. He recorded statement of Mohinder Kumar, under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Recording of statement concluded at 2.10 p.m., or say within 40 minutes of the occurrence. 3. Revision petitioner was challaned and tried for the aforesaid offences. Prosecution examined Mohinder Kumar, the driver of the other vehicle and two other …3… occupants of that vehicle, namely PW-2 Yash Pal and PW-3 Rajiv Kumar, and also the Investigating Officer ASI Raj Kumar (PW-7) to prove the case. 4. PW-1 Mohinder Kumar, the driver of the other vehicle, and PW-2 Yash Pal and PW-3 Rajiv Kumar, two occupants of the vehicle being driven by PW-1 Mohinder Kumar, testified, with one voice, that their vehicle had been brought to a halt, on seeing revision petitioner’s vehicle coming from the opposite side, at an excessive speed and on the wrong side, and that petitioner’s vehicle rammed into their stationary vehicle. There does not seem to be any reason to disbelieve their testimony, especially when it is corroborated by the earliest version, which was given to the police vide statement Ex. PW-1/A, within minutes of the occurrence of the accident. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution did not examine the man, who was present in the Jeep of the revision petitioner, at the time of the accident, namely Deepak Kumar. It is true that the prosecution did not examine that witness, but the revision petitioner himself cited him as defence witness and then gave him up. Deepak Kumar being an occupant of the Jeep of the revision petitioner himself was not likely to support the prosecution version and it appears that because of this reason he was not cited by the prosecution as its witness. Nothing prevented the petitioner from examining him. …4… 6. Petitioner himself, while making statement, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, did not say how the accident took place, though he did deny the evidence of the prosecution, which was put to him in the form of a number of questions. For the foregoing reasons, I see no merit in the present revision petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. November 11, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J