IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No. 188 of 2002 Date of decision :December 18, 2008. Onkar Singh …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Dutt Vasudeva, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. Per Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Revision petitioner has been convicted of offences, under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to six months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- for offence, under Section 338 IPC, one month simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- for offence, under Section 337 IPC and fine of Rs. 1000/- for offence, under Section 279 IPC. He has also been convicted of offence, under Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. 3. Relevant facts are that on 8.2.1996, PW2 Gian Chand and PW6 Munshi Ram boarded a three wheeler of the Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? petitioner for going to Kangra. When the three wheeler reached a place near village Sadarpur, it turned turtle, as a result of which, both PW2 Gian Chand and PW6 Munshi Ram sustained injuries. Matter was reported to the police by PW6 Munshi Ram. It was reported to the police that the three wheeler was being driven at a very fast speed and in a rash or negligent manner and because of that, when the three wheeler reached at the site of accident, the petitioner could not negotiate a sharp curve and the vehicle turned turtle. 3. Two courts below have relied upon the testimony of PW2 Gian Chand and PW6 Munshi Ram, as also the site plan prepared by the I.O. to hold the petitioner guilty. It has been observed by the two courts below that the testimony of PW2 Gian Chand is corroborated, in material particulars, by PW6 Munshi Ram. 4. I have gone through the record. As a matter of fact from the testimony of Munshi Ram PW6, who sustained grievous injuries, it is clear that the cause of accident was not rash or negligent or even fast driving of the three wheeler, but a ditch in the middle of the road, in which one of the tyres of the three wheeler slipped and then the three wheeler turned turtle. PW6 Munshi Ram stated that there was a depression in the middle of the road and that when the petitioner was giving pass to another three wheeler, which came from behind, one of the tyres of the petitioner’s three wheeler slipped into that depression and the three wheeler turned turtle. The fact that petitioner gave pass to another three wheeler, which came from behind belies the prosecution story that the petitioner was driving his three wheeler at a fast speed. Testimony of PW2 that the petitioner was negligent while driving is of little consequence, because he was supposed to have testified the facts, constituting negligence, and to have not given this judgment that he was negligent. 5. In view of the above stated position, I am of the considered view that the courts below have not appreciated the evidence in the right perspective, which has led to wrong conviction of the petitioner. Hence, the revision petition is allowed. Conviction and sentence of the revision petitioner, as recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate court, are set aside and the revision petitioner is acquitted. December 18, 2008 (vs) ( Surjit Singh ), J