IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 82 of 2003 Date of decision: 20. 5. 2010 Sanjeev ….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. ……Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the petitioner: Pt. Om Parkash, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General. Surinder Singh J. (Oral) Petitioner herein was tried and convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 337 Indian Penal Code and sentenced by the learned trial Court to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 279 and simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 337 Indian Penal code with default clause. 2. Against the aforesaid judgment of conviction and sentence, petitioner filed criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2002, before the Court of 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes - 2 - Sessions, which was dismissed on 23.3.2003. Now the petitioner has directed this revision challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below on law and facts. 3. In short, prosecution story can be stated thus. On 18.7.2000 Gopal Singh (PW3) was driving his Mahindra Utility bearing registration No. HP-06- 2177. His son Sushil Kumar (PW1) was sitting besides him whereas on the rear seat, two persons namely Dhan Bahadur his servant and one Kabir Chauhan of his village were also sitting. While returning from the market, they were going towards their village and at about 5.30 p.m., they reached near the place known as ‘bithal’ on the National Highway. From there, they were to approach another road to their village. Thus, while turning his vehicle towards the right side to take it on approach road, he gave signal as well as indicator but in the meantime, truck bearing registration No. HP23-3459 being driven by the petitioner dashed in the middle of said Utility of PW Gopal Singh. It is alleged that the truck was in a high speed and dragged the utility vehicle on the highway up to the distance of about 6 feet. Front tier of the truck got punctured. Gopal Singh and his son over powered the accused- - 3 - petitioner who was drunk and had tried to run- away. His identity was asked. Injured were removed in another vehicle to C.H.C. Kumarsain for their treatment and the matter was reported to the Police. 4. The petitioner was got medically examined and his blood and urine samples were also taken and sent for forensic examination. The report Ext. PX shows 110.9 mg alcohol in 100 ml of blood. Dhan Bahadur sustained three injuries which were simple in nature. MLC is Ext. PW4/A. PW2 Kabir Chauhan was also injured. Police Motor Mechanic PW5 HC Gian Chand mechanically examined both the vehicles in question and issued certificate Ext. PW5/A. 5. Police took photographs of the Utility, recorded the statement of the witnesses and after completing the investigation, presented the challan for the trial of the petitioner. 6. Finding a prima facie case against the petitioner, notice of accusation was put to him under the aforesaid Sections to which petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 7. To prove its case, prosecution examined its witnesses and petitioner was also examined - 4 - under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. His case was denial simplicitor. No evidence in defence was led. At the end of the trial, he was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. His appeal against the same was also dismissed. 8. Heard and gone through the record of the case. 9. PW3 Gopal Singh and his son PW1 Sushil Kumar as well as injured PW2 Kabir Chauhan have substantiated the fact of rash or negligent driving by the petitioner. The complainant has also proved the statement Ext. PW3/A recorded by the Police, on the basis of which FIR Ext. PW6/A was formally registered. In their cross-examination, nothing material could be extracted which could go in favour of the petitioner. 10. The accident in question stands proved. Once the rash or negligent driving is established from the evidence of the prosecution, onus shifts on the accused/petitioner to explain due care and caution. He is under obligation to explain what steps he did to avert the accident. Another circumstance which aggravates the offence charged against the petitioner is that he was drunk at the relevant time. This fact has been testified by PW2 - 5 - Gopal Singh and his son PW1 Sushil Kumar. The blood and urine of the petitioner was sent for forensic examination. The report Ext. PX clearly indicates the quantity of alcohol present in the blood. Although he was not charge sheeted for the offence under Section 185 Motor Vehicles Act yet facts prove that the petitioner had consumed alcohol and was driving the vehicle which itself is an act of rashness on his part. In view of the overwhelming evidence on record, in my opinion, courts below did not commit any error in convicting the petitioner for the offences aforesaid. 11. In so far as sentence is concerned, the accident had taken place on 18.7.2000, i.e., about 10 years back from today. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for leniency. According to him petitioner has no criminal history to his credit nor he committed similar offence again. He further submitted that at the time of accident, petitioner was 32 years old and by now he has settled well with his family having children and is the sole bread earner and hope of the family. He also submitted that the appellant faced torture of trial and uncertainty in appeal. Therefore, in case petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment, it will cause a blot on - 6 - his career and would be looked down and would be disadvantageous to his profession. I have considered these aspects of the case also. 12. Looking at the damage caused by the petitioner in the instant case to the Utility vehicle and leaving two persons injured on the spot, he should be sufficiently atoned for his misadventure. Therefore, while striking the balance, in my opinion, the ends of justice would be met in case, the petitioner is exonerated from the substantive sentence imposed by the Courts below for the offences under Section 337 Indian Penal Code, without disturbing the fine. In addition, petitioner is ordered to deposit an amount of Rs.7000/- in the learned trial Court within six weeks from today out of which Rs.5000/- shall be paid to the complainant Gopal Singh for the damage caused to his vehicle and Rs.1000/- to each of the injured namely, PW2 Kabir Chauhan and Dhan Bahadur. In case, petitioner fails to deposit the aforesaid amount of compensation within the aforesaid period, it shall be realized as a fine. Ordered accordingly. With the above modification in sentence, matter stands disposed of. May 20, 2010 (Surinder Singh),J (cm)