IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No.521 of 2002 Date of decision : April 20, 2009 State of Himachal Pradesh Appellant Vs. Rupender Singh Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1. Yes. For the appellant : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondent : Ms. Sunita Sharma, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) State has appealed against the judgment of the Sessions Court at Nahan, whereby accepting the appeal of respondent Rupender Singh, judgment of the trial Magistrate convicting and sentencing the respondent for offences, under Section 279, 337 and 338 IPC, has been set aside and the respondent has been acquitted. 2. Allegations on which the respondent was tried for the aforesaid offences may be noticed. On 13.5.1998, respondent Rupender Singh was driving bus No.HP-17-7486. Bus was coming from Paonta Sahib towards Nahan. When it reached a place called Katasni Devi, a tractor was going ahead of it. Respondent blew horn to overtake the tractor. The tractor driver signalled him by waving his hand to overtake. When the bus was overtaking the tractor, car bearing registration No. DL-2CC-0687 appeared from the opposite Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… direction. There was a curve on the spot and because of that the driver of the bus could not see that car. The bus rammed into the car as a result of which, its driver PW-2 Avtar Singh, who was driving the car and three other occupants of the car, namely PW-1 Amar Deep, a son, Balbir Kaur wife and Gurender Kaur, a daughter of PW-2 Avtar Singh received injuries. Gurender Kaur, daughter of Avtar Singh, received grievous injuries. Matter was reported to the police. Investigation was conducted. Spot was inspected and site plan was prepared by PW-8 HC Rupinder Singh. 3. During the Course of trial, plea taken by the respondent was that a tractor was going ahead of him at the site where there was a curve and that when he blew horn to overtake the tractor, the driver of the tractor waved his hand, indicating that he could over take and when he was overtaking that tractor, car in question, came from the opposite direction and a head on collision took place. 4. Learned trial Magistrate held that overtaking the tractor at a curve by itself was an act of negligence endangering human life or personal safety of others and consequently convicted and sentenced the respondent, as aforesaid. 5. Respondent went in appeal. Learned Sessions Judge held that real culprit was the driver of the tractor who was in a position to see the car coming from the opposite direction, but still he waved his hand as a signal for the driver of the bus to overtake his tractor. 6. I have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General as also the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 7. View taken by the learned Sessions Judge is perverse. A person driving a vehicle is not supposed to act on the signal of a vehicle going ahead of him for overtaking such vehicle; especially when …3… there is a curve ahead, on account of which traffic coming from the opposite direction cannot be seen either by the driver of the vehicle to be overtaken or the driver of the overtaking vehicle. It is one of the basic principles that the driver should have clear vision upto a safe distance so that in case of any vehicle or other object appearing from the opposite direction, vehicle may be brought to halt, by applying brakes to avert collision. Admittedly, in the present case this basic principle was violated by the respondent and this by itself, in my considered view, constitutes criminal negligence, within the meaning of Sections 279 and 337 IPC. 8. In view of the above stated position, I see no reason to reject the State appeal so far as the conviction of the respondent for offences, under Sections 279 and 337 IPC is concerned. However, conviction of the respondent for offence, under Section 338 IPC does not appear to be justfiable, because no evidence was adduced before the trial Magistrate, indicating that the daughter of PW-2 Avtar Singh or for that matter any other occupant of the car sustained any grievous injury. So, the conviction of the respondent for offence, under Section 338 IPC is set aside. 9. So far as the sentence of the respondent for offences under Sections 279 and 337 IPC is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that a lenient view may be taken. In view of the peculiar facts and the circumstances of the case; particularly the fact that the respondent was misled in presuming the road to be clear, on account of the signal given by the tractor going ahead of him, I find a good deal of force in this submission and consequently, the sentence of the respondent for the two offences, i.e. offences under Sections 279 …4… and 337 IPC, as awarded by the learned trial Magistrate, is modified as follows: (a) for offence under Section 279 IPC, the respondent is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-; in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of fifteen days; (b) for offence under Section 337, he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- ; in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of fifteen days. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. 10. Respondent is directed to surrender to the trial Court, within a fortnight, to serve out the sentence, as aforesaid, failing which the trial Court shall take appropriate steps to secure his presence and send him to jail for serving out the sentence. Appeal stands disposed of. April 20, 2009(ss) ( Surjit Singh ), J