IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Criminal Revision No.231 of 2003. Date of decision: 01.09.2010. Jaswant Singh … …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. … …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Petitioner: M/s.Paresh Sharma, Surinder Sharma and Shivank Panta, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr.P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General with Ms.Shubh Mahajan, Assistant Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the judgment and sentence of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-(II), Kangra, as affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-(II), Kangra at Dharamshala, sentencing the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer further simple imprisonment 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 for a period of one month. The petitioner was charged for offences under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code but sentenced only under Section 304- A of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case is that on 28.1.1996, the petitioner was deputed to drive bus of the Himachal Road Transport Corporation from Jogindernagar to Chandigarh. At around 10.00/10.30 A.M., when the bus just entered Kangra Bus Stand when he ran over one Biru alias Bir Chand, resident of village Kohala, who was shifted to SDH Kangra from where he was rushed to Zonal Hospital, Dharamshala. Pursuant to injuries sustained to him he died at Dharamshala. 3. The petitioner denied the charges leveled against him and claimed trial. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Sikander Singh, PW-2 Dr.S.B. Sood, PW-3 Satish Kumar, PW-4 Tara Singh, PW-5 Mohinder Singh, PW-6 Dr.D.P. Swami, PW-7 Karam Singh, PW-8 Prem Singh, PW-9 C.Virender Kumar, PW-10 Kuldip Kumar and PW-11 H.C. Onkar Singh. 4. The crucial witness is PW-10 Kuldip Kumar, who is an eye witness and has supported the case of the prosecution. He states that the deceased was standing in exit point of the Bus Stand when the accused negotiated the curve in a sharpness and negligent manner, as a result of which he struck by the bus, fell down, crushed by the tyre of the bus and sustained injuries. The prosecution also relied upon Ex.PW-11/C 3 and photographs Ex.PW-9/A to Ex.PW-9/C to substantiate the fact that the bus was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The report of the Mechanic Ex.PW-7/A proved that there is no mechanical defect in the bus. The other witness PW-1 Sikander Singh, though says that the deceased was struck by the bus, was declared hostile when cross-examined. It would be worthwhile to note here that PW-10 Kuldip Kumar was a three wheeler driver who has witnessed the entire incident and has identified the bus alongwith its driver and number. He says that when the bus struck against the deceased no brakes were applied and the tyre had run over the legs of the deceased. He raised alarm, thereafter he and PW-1 Sikander Singh carried him to the hospital in its three wheeler. The statement of PW-1 Sikander Singh can be relied to the extent where it exposed that the accident taken place. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has affirmed this sentence. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there are contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses and, as such, no conviction can be made. He says that there are material contradictions in statements of PW-1 Sikander Singh and PW-10 Kuldip Kumar and that it has not been established on the record that the petitioner was rash and negligent. On the first contention, I cannot accept this submission for the reason that I find from the evidence that the incident has been established beyond reasonable doubt 4 by PW-10 Kuldip Kumar who not only witnessed the entire incident, but took the injured to the hospital. The factum of PW-1 Surinder Singh turning hostile is of no avail as it supports the case of the prosecution. I do not find any circumstance on the record which would establish that the appreciation of the evidence by the Courts below is perverse. 5. One other fact also needs be noticed. The deceased was about 80 years of age and it was for the more reasons that the petitioner should have driven the bus in a careful manner. In these circumstances, the submissions that the petitioner was driving the bus carefully and according to the established norms of driving vehicle safely cannot be accepted. The revision petition is accordingly rejected. 6. On the question of sentencing the petitioner, I find that the incident is of 1996 and now I pronounced upon the sentence after a period of more than 14 years when the case remained pending in various Courts including this Court. On more than one occasions, the Supreme Court has observed that the cases of rash and negligent driving should be dealt with sternly. 7. Looking to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that it would be in the interest of justice in case the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to two months. A direction is issued to the trial Court to ensure that the sentence 5 is carried out. Bail bonds furnished by the petitioner shall stand cancelled. A direction is issued to the learned Additional Sessions Judge-(II), Kangra at Dharamshala to ensure that the sentence imposed upon the petitioner is duly executed. September 1, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.