IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 221 of 2002 Date of judgment: June 17, 2009 Kashmir 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. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocate Vice Mr. Jagdish Vats, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J. (Oral) Revision petitioner seeks reversal of the judgment dated 16.8.2000 of the learned trial Magistrate, whereby he has been convicted of offences, under Sections 279, 337,338 and 304-A IPC and sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment and amounts of fine, as also judgment dated 5.12.2002 of learned Sessions Judge, whereby his appeal against the aforesaid judgment of trial Magistrate, has been dismissed and his conviction and sentence for the aforesaid offences, affirmed. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - Prosecution case which has resulted in the conviction and sentence of the revision petitioner for the aforesaid offences, may be summed up thus. Revision petitioner was driver of a Tempo bearing registration No. HP39-3275. On 16.6.1994, he was carrying a marriage party consisting of 40 - 45 persons in that Tempo from Baijnath to Panjala side. He drove the Tempo in a rash or negligent manner at a very high speed. When it reached near Gatta Factory, it rolled down the road and fell into a Khud known as “Sansali Khud”. As a result of that accident, five persons on board the Tempo, died and several other received simple as well as grievous injuries. Matter was reported to the police. Police got the Tempo mechanically examined. No mechanical defect was found by PW9 Alam Chand. On completion of investigation, Challan was filed. Trial Court charged the revision petitioner with the aforesaid offences and on his pleading not guilty, put him on trial. Some of the passengers, who survived but sustained injuries in the accident, were examined. They are PW-3 Kishori Lal, PW-4 Beli Ram, PW-5 Tenku Ram, PW-11 Hira Devi, PW-14 Raj Kumari and PW-15 Dev Kali. All of them stated that the truck was being driven at a fast speed and because of that the revision petitioner, who was in driver’s seat could not control the Tempo and it fell into the khud, as soon as it approached the bridge of that khud. Defence suggested to these witnesses was that at the site of the accident, one of the front spring leaves of the Tempo got broken due to which it tilted on one side and on seeing the - 3 - Tempo in that position, persons on board, got panicky and started jumping out because of which the vehicle got imbalanced and fell into the khud. The witnesses denied the suggestion. Relying upon the testimony of the above-named witnesses, who were travelling by the Tempo and disbelieving the defence version, learned trial Court sentenced and convicted the petitioner, as aforesaid. Appeal was filed by the revision petitioner in the Sessions Court, which stands dismissed. I have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as also the learned Assistant Advocate General and gone through the record. Some of the passengers on board the Tempo, examined by the prosecution, namely, PW1 Ashwani Kumar, PW2 Naresh Kumar, PW3 Kishori Lal, PW4 Beli Ram, PW5 Tenku Ram, PW6 Dr. Nirdosh Gupta, PW7 J.Shree Prahlad, PW8 Dr. B.Prahlad, PW9 Alam Chand, PW10 Kartar Singh, PW11 Hira Devi, PW12 Khudi Devi, PW13, Suresh Kumar, PW14 Raj Kumari, PW15 Dev Kali, PW16 Raj Kumari, PW17 Dr.Karan Sharma, PW18 Gian Chand and PW19 Dr. B.C.Khanna, very categorically stated that the Tempo was being driven very fast and because of that the petitioner lost control over it when the vehicle approached the bridge of Sansali Khud and it fell into the khud. They denied the suggestion thrown to them on behalf of the revision petitioner that one of the spring leaves of the Tempo in its front had broken and because of that the Tempo tilted and the - 4 - passengers started jumping out of it in panic which led to the Tempo getting imbalanced and consequently, falling into the khud. I see no reason for disbelieving the testimony of above- named witnesses who admittedly were on board the Tempo. Defence plea is not probabilised. PW9 Alam Chand, who conducted the mechanical test and gave the report ExPW9/A, though stated in his cross-examination that he had not checked the spring leaves of the Tempo, yet in his report he very specifically mentioned that he did not find any mechanical defect in the vehicle. The defence plea, as aforesaid, is not stated by the revision petitioner himself, in his examination, under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Witnesses of the occurrence have denied the suggestion with respect to this plea. Therefore, no fault can be found with the rejection of the defence plea by the trial Court as also by the Appellate Court. In view of the above stated position, there is no merit in the present revision petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. June 17, 2009. (Surjit Singh), J. s.