IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Rev. No. 204 of 2010. Date of Decision:18.10.2010. _______________________________________________ Hem Raj. ….Petitioner. Versus. State of H.P. ….Respondent. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1?. For the petitioner :Mr.M.S.Guleria, Advocate. For Respondent. :Mr. P.K.Sharma, Addl. Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). The petitioner was the accused for offences under Sections 287, 336 and 337 I.P.C. on the allegations that on 19.4.2001 at around 12.45 p.m. near Souli Khad, Swaraj Mazda canter bearing No. HP-34-4632 was brought for repair to the workshop of Supreme Automobile. The case is that one Pawan Kumar was beneath the vehicle repairing the defects, the accused suddenly started the vehicle with the result that Pawan Kumar sustained injury. 2. On the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted the petitioner for various terms of simple imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.200/- for offences under Section 287 I.P.C. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?. 2 was sentenced to undergo various terms of imprisonment. Appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by the learned appellate Court. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the judgment of both the courts below. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner urges that the prosecution story is not only improbable but impossible. In particular, he refers to the evidence of PW6 Pawan Kumar injured, who states that the tyre of the vehicle crushed his stomach and PW4 Dr.R.S.Malhotra, Zonal Hospital, Mandi, who examined him. Learned counsel submits that the findings cannot be sustained for the reason that PW4 Dr.R.S.Malhotra only states that there was tenderness on the stomach and the chest of the injured and did not find any other serious injuries on the body. If what the injured states is the correct position then death would have been a certainty. 4. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. True that if the evidence of the injured is accepted as it is, it may not be stating the fact situation as deposed by him. However what is required to be noticed is that when appearing in evidence such people always make loose statements. The evidence of the doctor establishes that some injuries have been caused to Pawan Kumar. It is also undisputed that Pawan Kumar was under the vehicle and was repairing it. In these 3 circumstances, I do not find any perversity in the findings of the courts below. 5. Adverting to the question of sentence, I find that the learned courts below have not considered the fact that no serious injury was caused to injured Pawan Kumar. 6. In these circumstances, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner is set aside subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.10,000/- in the trial Court within a period of three months from today. This amount when deposited shall be paid to injured Pawan Kumar. It is clarified that in case of non deposit of this amount, the sentence of imprisonment shall revive. The revision petition is disposed of. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. October 18, 2010(R)