IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Criminal Revision No. 11 of 2003 Date of Decision: 12.05.2010 __________________________________________________________ Prabhu Dayal. ….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: Mr. Anup Chitkara, Advocate. For the Respondent: Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral) The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and sentence imposed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for each offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence under Section 279, Rs. 1000/- for offence under Section 337 and Rs. 1000/- for offence under Section 338, and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days for each offence. 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 2. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has affirmed the judgment and sentence. The prosecution had alleged that on May, 30, 2000, three teachers PW-1 Om Wati, PW-2 Anuradha Garg and PW-3 Sunila Kachhan were proceeding from the School at Sarahan to their residence, when a vehicle driven by the petitioner herein came at a high speed from behind and struck against Om Wati and Anrudha Garg, due to which PW-1 Om Wati fell down and PW-2 Anuradha Garg also sustained injuries. On appreciation of evidence of complainant PW-1, Om Wati, who stated that she alongwith two of her colleagues was proceeded towards their residence, when vehicle being driven by the accused struck against her, PW-2 Anuradha Garg and PW-3 Sunila Kachhan. The learned Court holds that the petitioner was guilty of offences as charged. 3. Two doctors PW-8 Dr. V.K. Bhardwaj and PW-11 Dr. Sarita Agnihotri were examined. PW-11 Dr. Sarita examined both the injured. She found that Smt. Anuradha Garg, PW-2 had sustained abrasion on the elbow, which was .5 cm X .5 cm, (Ex. PW-11/A), which was simple in nature. PW-1 Om Wati, was complaining of pain in the occipital region, but no redness or swelling was seen. She also complained of pain in the sacral region, where tenderness was present, but there was no redness or swelling. There was also a bruise measuring 3 cm X 2 cm on back of her lower thigh. PW-8 Dr. V.K. Bhardwaj, Radiologist, conducted X-Ray on Om Wati, PW-1 and found vide his report Ex. PW-8/C that she had suffered fracture of the coccyx. Both the courts concurrently came to the conclusion that the petitioner herein was guilty of causing injuries to Anuradha and Om Wati; I am not inclined to take a different view in the revisional jurisdiction by re-appreciating the evidence. 4. However, I do not find that the offences have been committed in a manner would lead to the conclusion that there was gross negligence on the part of the petitioner. PW-2 Smt. Anuradha Garg has herself 3 stated in her evidence that soon after the offending vehicle struck against her and PW-1 Om Wati, it had stopped immediately. There is no evidence on record to show that the vehicle was driven in such a rash and negligent manner that it left some trail or signs on the road. In these circumstances, I deem it a fit case in which two of the victims of the accident PW-1 Om Wati and PW-2 Anuradha Garg can be compensated. I therefore, direct that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- be paid to PW-2 Anuradha. PW-1 Om Wati be paid a sum of Rs. 40,000/- as she has suffered fracture. The amount will be deposited in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, at Sarahan. In addition to this amount, the fine imposed shall also be paid to both the victims in equal proportion. In taking this view I am fortified by the decision of Supreme Court in Hardev Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1994 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1234. The amount shall be deposited within a period of twelve weeks from today. It is clarified that in case the amount is not deposited, the sentence of imprisonment shall revive and the petitioner shall undergo the sentences imposed. It is also directed that as and when the amount is deposited, victims PW-1 Om Wati and PW-2 Anuradha Garg be informed immediately. The amount so paid shall not be deducted from any civil action including any action under the Motor Vehicle Act which may be or has been brought against the petitioner. This Petition disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Bail bonds furnished by the petitioner shall stand discharged. May 12, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), (KRS) Judge