IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No.22 of 2003 Date of decision : April 29, 2009 Jagat 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. M.S. Guleria, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) Revision petitioner has been convicted of offences, under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 15 days, in respect of offence under Section 279 IPC and one month imprisonment, in respect of offence, under Section 304-A IPC, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, by modifying the judgment of trial Magistrate, whereby he was convicted of offences, under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in respect of offence, under Section 304-A IPC and further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for each of the remaining offences. 2. Allegations on which the revision petitioner was tried and has been convicted and sentenced, as aforesaid, may be noticed. On 22.6.1992, respondent was driver of Haryana Roadways Bus No. HR- 03-7924, which started from Manali and was bound for Chandigarh. When the bus reached near Slappar, the respondent, without caring for Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… the traffic coming from the opposite direction, tried to negotiate a blind curve, and that too without reducing the speed of the bus, as a result thereof, the bus went to the wrong side and rammed into a van which appeared from the opposite direction. A number of persons were traveling by the van. Four persons, named Anil, Pallavi, Binny and N.K. Goswami died as a result of that accident while four others named Basu, Kiran, Vandana and Neelam Katyal sustained grievous injuries. One more person by the name of Vinod Kumar sustained simple injuries. Matter was reported to the police. On completion of investigation, respondent was challaned. 3. Trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner, as aforesaid. Petitioner appealed against the judgment of the trial Magistrate. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has reduced the sentence for offence, under Section 304 IPC from one year imprisonment to one month imprisonment. Petitioner is still not satisfied. According to him, the evidence on record does not prove the charge. 4. I have gone through the evidence and heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Deputy Advocate General. 5. A perusal of the evidence, recorded during the course of trial, particularly the testimony of injured occupants of the van, namely PW-5 Neelam Katyal, PW-12 Vandna Shikha, PW-13 Vinod Shikha and PW-14 Kiran Goswami, proves the accusation against the revision petitioner, beyond reasonable doubt. All of them testified, with one voice, that the bus appeared at a fast speed on the wrong side and hit the van by which they were travelling. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the statement of PW-6 Roop Chand, Mechanic, and urged that his …3… statement proves that the brake system of the bus had not been working owing to leakage of air pressure and because of that the accident took place. I do not find any merit in this submission. No suggestion was thrown to any of the witnesses of the prosecution that the accident took place because of failure of brake system of the bus. On the other hand, suggestions were thrown that the van was being driven very fast and its driver lost control at the curve and the van hit a parapet and rolled down the road. Also there is nothing on record suggesting that air pressure of the bus had leaked, before the accident took place. 7. Another submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the sentence of imprisonment, in respect of offence, under Section 304-A IPC may be changed into payment of heavy amount of fine, because the petitioner is now an old man aged about 75 years. In these kind of cases, in my considered view, age cannot be a relevant factor for reducing the sentence. As a matter of fact the learned Additional Sessions Judge has already committed a serious mistake by reducing the sentence of imprisonment for offence under Section 304-A IPC 8. In view of the above stated position, I find no merit in the revision petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. April 29, 2009(ss) ( Surjit Singh ), J