IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No. 119/2002 Ompal Singh ……… Revisionist Versus State of Uttaranchal ………. Respondent Mr. Rajendra Singh, Advocate, for the revisionist. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, GA, for the State. 16th June, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. This revision has been directed against the judgment and order of Additional Sessions Judge/II F.T.C., Haridwar dated 20.11.2002, wherein the sentence of conviction passed by the trial court under Section 304A/427 IPC and 279 IPC was sustained in Crime No. 193/94 pertaining to Police Station Kotwali, Roorkee, District Haridwar. 2. The brief facts, sans unnecessary details, of this revision are that on the relevant date at about 4.30 pm, a roadways bus was being plied by the accused revisionist from Roorkee to Haridwar and the three deceased youths were travelling by their motorcycle from Hardiwar to Roorkee. At the spot of accident, this bus dashed the motorcycle making all the three youths breathed their last at the spot. The First Information Report was lodged by a stranger who have been examined by the prosecution as PW1 Hari Singh and after investigation, the chargesheet was submitted against the accused Sri Ompal Singh for the offences as stated above. 2 3. After trial, the learned Magistrate convicted the accused revisionist, which was sustained by the lower appellate court. 4. The learned Counsel for the accused revisionist has drew the attention of this Court that the culprit bus was being driven by the accused in a very slow speed which is evident from the deposition of PW1 Hari Singh, who says that this bus was following another private bus and the latter was moving at very slow pace. If this is so, then how the accused Ompal Singh can be held guilty for driving the bus rashly or negligently? This argument of the learned defence counsel has been countered by the learned GA inviting the attention of this Court towards the map of the site Ex. Ka-12 which has been prepared by the Investigation Officer. This map adverts that the spot of accident is “X”. At this spot, the bus was being driven slowly following another private bus. When this roadways bus driver could not maintain his speed for a long time following that private bus, so his natural conduct was to overtake that private bus to speed up his vehicle and thus negligence which he made at the spot was that he did not take caution to observe very scrupulously any other vehicle or the passenger coming from in front and this negligence of the accused revisionist caused the accident. 5. It is pertinent to mention that after accident, the bus driver took his bus at the left of the road and having parked his bus at the left side, he absconded from the spot. Had be been innocent it was incumbent upon him to rush up to the nearest police station and inform the accident but he refrained from that and took the recourse of escaping 3 from the spot. This conduct of the accused revisionist indicates his culpability in the crime. 6. In Madhudas v. State of Rajasthan, 1994 CrLJ 3595 (Raj.), it was held that when both the courts below have come to the concurrent finding that the accused is guilty based on proper appreciation of evidence, such conviction cannot be disturbed in revision. 7. The learned Counsel for the revisionist has made the request to this Court that for the offences under Section 304A and 279 IPC, the accused can be punished only by the fine only. But looking at the gravity of the offence where the three youths have lost the life, this Court is not inclined to let the offenders go scot free with fine. The learned Counsel has cited a precedent of the case of Braham Dass v. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 406. In this case, the ratio pertaining to rash and negligent driving, what has been held by the Hon’ble Court is in quite different perspective. More so, it has nowhere been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that where the negligence or rashness are apparent from the facts of the incident, then also the accused should be allowed to go scot free. Contrary to the facts of the case in hand, in this Brahm Dass case, the accused driver of the Himachal Pradesh Roadways Transport Corporation started his bus and began moving while one of the passengers was on the bus roof for the purpose of unloading his luggage and the driver without verifying if all the passengers who were to board had boarded and who were to alight had alighted, all of a sudden started the bus, as a result of which the said passenger fell down and sustained injuries. So the gravity of the facts of this precedent and that of the 4 case in hand are quite apart and the facts of the case in hand cannot be equated with this case. No benefit of this precedent can be extended to the present revisionist. 8. After going through the evidence deposed by the witnesses and other prosecution papers on record, this Court is of the view that even in the appreciation of evidence the Courts below have not committed any irregularity. Facts have been appreciated in their entirety and in all deepness and meticulously and then the conviction has been recorded by both the courts below. 9. In the circumstances, the revision is devoid of merit and is dismissed. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 16.6.2011 Prabodh