IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.Revision No.111 of 2004. Date of decision: 27.09.2010. Manoj Kumar Sharma alias Manoj Kumar. … …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.Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr.P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General with Ms.Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud,J. The petitioner is aggrieved by his conviction under Sections 279, 337 IPC which has been affirmed both on the point of conviction and sentence by the learned appellate Court. 2. The injured Rajesh Kumar PW-8 met with an accident on 23.4.2001. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was driving the van in a rash and negligent manner and struck against Rajesh Kumar causing injuries to him. It is undisputed that the accident took place and the van struck against Rajesh Kumar causing injuries to him. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the cause of the accident was not because 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 of the rash and negligent acts of the petitioner but was the direct result of the negligence of the father of the injured who had parked his truck No.HP-38-2588 on a curve where the injured was playing. He submits that the child has been left free to play on a highway being used and congested with the traffic. In these circumstances, no criminality could be attributed to the petitioner. This point has been agitated and re- agitated both before the trial Court as also the appellate Court. 4. In these circumstances, I cannot re- appreciate the evidence all over again. On the question of sentencing, I find that both the Courts below hold that it was the petitioner who had carried the child immediately to the hospital for necessary treatment. The medical report Ex.PW-6 also shows that he has sustained simple injuries. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of imprisonment is set aside. It is directed that petitioner shall deposit Rs.15,000/- before the learned trial Court within three months from today and it shall be paid to the injured Rajesh Kumar PW-8 and in case he is a minor then through his natural guardian. It is clarified, if this amount is not deposited within the period allowed, the sentence will revive. This petition is disposed of. September 27, 2010. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.