IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Rev. No. 130 of 2005. Date of Decision: 16.6.2011. _______________________________________________ Ram Sarup. ….Petitioner. Versus. State of H.P. ….Respondent. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? Yes. For the petitioner :Mr.Deepak Kaushal, Advocate. For Respondent . :Mr. P.K.Sharma, Addl. Advocate General with Ms.Shubh Mahajan, Dy. Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral). The petitioner challenges his conviction by the two courts below for offences under Sections 279 and 304-A I.P.C. 2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner herein, who was driving bus bearing No.HP-19-7216 of Saini Coach Service which was coming from the Una side and being driven in a rash and negligent manner, struck the deceased Gurdass Ram, who was knocked down. The injured sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. F.I.R. Ext.PW6/A was registered with Police Station, Amb. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment.No. 2 3. On the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted the accused for offences as charged. Twelve witnesses were examined by the prosecution to establish its case. PW1 Yudhbir Singh was standing with the deceased along with Pritam Chand at Tatehra Bus Stand at the time when the accident was reported. The statement Ext.PA forms the basis of the First Information Report. He has described that at that time the petitioner, who was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, struck against Gurdass Ram, who fell down and died as a result of the injuries. PW3 Pritam Dass was standing with the deceased. He states that on the day of occurrence, bus No.H.P.19-7219 which was involved in the accident and being driven in a rash and negligent speed, struck against Gurdass Ram. Though, he did not identify the driver and was declared hostile and subjected to lengthy cross-examination but nothing material has transpired there from to detract from the fact that the deceased was knocked down by the speeding bus. 4. On the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted the petitioner herein. On the question of sentencing, the learned trial Court holds that since the petitioner is the sole bread earner of the family, lenient view was taken and convicted him for offences under Sections 279 and 304-A I.P.C. and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 5. The appeal preferred before the learned Sessions Judge was dismissed after re-appreciated the entire evidence. This revision petition was admitted and notice of enhancement of punishment was issued to the petitioner herein. 3 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and gone through the record. 7. The submissions made in the revision are of a general nature and cannot countenance adjudication save and except that the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued at length that the conclusion arrived at by the two courts below on the evidence as produced are perverse. The submission made is that the driver not having been identified, no criminal liability would be fastened on him. I cannot accept this submission. Both the courts below have concurrently found not only the identity of the petitioner established but also the fact that he was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner. 8. I was inclined to increase the sentence of imprisonment as imposed upon the petitioner for the reason that rash and negligent driving has now become a menace causing danger to the life of even the pedestrian and people waiting on the road side. Commercial vehicles display little respect for the life and liberty of the citizens causing serious injuries/death and then urge false defence in order to escape criminal liability. 9. I have considered the law in extenso on holding that in cases involving Section 304-A, a mandatory sentence should not be imposed. (See: State of H.P. Vs. Girdhari Lal, 2007 Cr.L.J. 4347) However, it is the medical condition of the petitioner herein which prompts me to alter the sentence of imprisonment to one of award of compensation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record medical record of the petitioner from the P.G.I. Chandigarh showing 4 that he suffers from a brain disorder which would be detrimental in case he is detained in prison. 10. In these circumstances, the sentence of imprisonment is set aside. Notice of enhancement of sentence is also discharged. It is directed that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.75,000/- (Seventy five thousand only) with the learned trial Court within a period of four months from today which amount shall be disbursed to the legal representatives of deceased-Gurdass Ram. This amount shall not be deducted from any award made in M.A.C.T. claim or other cases. On failure of the petitioner to deposit of money, the sentence of imprisonment shall revive and the trial Court shall faithfully and duly execute the sentence by the Trial Court. Petition is disposed of. Copy dasti on usual terms. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. June 16, 2011(R)