IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CR.R No.17 of 2003 Date of decision : June 29, 2009 Baldev 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. V.S. Rathore, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Revision petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment, dated 5th January, 2001, of trial Magistrate, whereby he has been convicted of offences, under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in respect of offence, under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code; simple imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs.250/-, for offence, under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code; and rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.1,000/-, for offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, as also by the judgment, dated 1st January, 2003 of Sessions Court, whereby his appeal, against the said conviction and sentence, has been dismissed. 3. Revision petitioner was tried for the aforesaid offences on the allegation that he drove Truck No.RJ-13G-1798, Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… on Damtal-Pathankot road, on 25th July, 1995 around 5.30 p.m., in so rash or negligent a manner as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and while so driving he hit a Jeep bearing registration No.HP-47-0127, which appeared from the opposite direction. There were three occupants of the Jeep, including its driver, PW-3 Subhash Chand. Another occupant was PW-2 Jagdish Kumar. Third occupant was Pritam Chand, who died, as a result of that accident. PW-2 Jagdish and PW-3 Subhash Chand escaped with minor injuries. 4. Revision petitioner took the plea that he was not driving the Truck and that, in fact, he had parked the Truck near a Dhaba and when he was taking meals at the Dhaba, someone entered the Truck and drove it away towards Pathankot. He stated that ignition key had been in the Truck, when he was taking meals. 5. PW-2 Jagdish and PW-3 Subhash Chand, no doubt, did state that they did not know who was driving the Truck, when the accident took place, but that by itself does not prove the defence plea. They stated that they could not recognize the driver, because he alongwith the conductor fled from the spot, soon after the accident. 6. Plea of the revision petitioner is an afterthought. He did not lodge any report about the Truck having been stolen/driven away, when he was taking his meals at Damtal, before or even after the accident had taken place. Also, he did not lead any evidence, in support of his plea that he was taking meals at some Dhaba. He could have very easily examined the …3… Dhaba owner to prove his plea, because had there been any truth in his plea, he would have immediately raised alarm and the first person, who would have been complained to, was supposed to be the Dhaba owner, where the petitioner was allegedly taking his meals, at the relevant time. In view of the abovestated position, I find no merit in the present Revision Petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. June 29, 2009(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J