IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.Revision No. 68 of 2003. Date of Decision: 24.5.2010. __________________________________________________________ Ajay Rana. ….Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ….Respondent. ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate. For the Respondent: Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral) The petitioner challenges his conviction by learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 11-S/10 of 2002 decided on 4.3.2003, whereby the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 279 and simple imprisonment for a period of two years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- for committing an offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. The brief facts of the case are that on 19.9.1997 the statement of complainant Sh. Ved Parkash was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. to the effect that he had parked his 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 vehicle mini-truck (Tata-407) near S.S.B.Training Centre Gate Dharampur. The truck was loaded at the point of time as it was carrying goods. The truck was parked because it had some mechanical defect. The complainant along with the driver were sleeping on the road in front of their vehicle by spreading a ‘Tarpolin’. At about 1 a.m., he heard a noise striking something with the vehicle and the driver of the truck started screaming as the left tyre of the truck had run over his chest. He saw that a taxi-van bearing registration No. HP-02-0685 had rammed into the truck. The vehicle could not be shifted but the driver could only be released after a jack had been put under the engine and the truck raised on it. The accused was charged for offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Dalbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2000 SC 1677, noting that traffic accidents had become rampant and required to be curbed. He held that no separate sentence is required to be imposed under Section 279 I.P.C. but sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and fine of Rs. 5,000/-for offence under Section 304-A I.P.C. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. The submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that it was not a deliberate act of negligence contemplated by the petitioner, as the vehicle was 3 mechanically unsound, cannot be accepted. I do not find any evidence on record to establish this plea. In fact, Ext.PW1/A which is the mechanical report of both the vehicles shows that they were in a fit and sound mechanical condition. I do not find any merit in this submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner which is rejected. In the circumstances, I reduce the substantive sentence of imprisonment to two months simple imprisonment. It is directed that the petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan. A direction is issued to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan to execute the sentence in accordance with law. Needless to say that the period spent by the petitioner in police custody/jail before the trial or during the trial shall be set off against the sentence imposed by this Court. The petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge May 24,2010(R)