IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revison No. 169 of 2003. Date of Decision: June 3, 2010. _______________________________________________ Kanshi Ram ….Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ….Respondent. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the petitioner : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. ____________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J This revision has been filed by the petitioner who has been charged and convicted for offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 & 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on the fateful day, the deceased Amarjeet Singh and Rajdeep Kaur alongwith other persons including Harjit Singh were travelling in Maruti Car No. PCT-6633. These persons alongwith Gullu, Shavina and Sarla had visited Baba Bhadbhag Singh Mairi on 30th of July, 1996. When they were on their way to Chandigarh, at Dahlan at around 2.25 p.m, the petitioner who 1Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? yes was driving bus No. HP-20-0603 and coming from the opposite direction, smashed into the car with such an impact that it dragged the car for about 10-15 feet. The car was badly crushed and Amarjit Singh and Rajdeep Kaur were killed in the accident. Statement of Harjit Singh Ext. PA was recorded by the police under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and F.I.R Ext.PW-9/E was registered. 3. On the evidence on record, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una convicted the petitioner for the offences as charged and denied him the benefit of Section 360 of the Probation of Offenders Act. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for offence under Section 279 IPC, simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for offence under Section 337 IPC, simple imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for offence under Section 338 IPC and simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for offences under Section 304-A IPC and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for one month on each score. 4. The petitioner appealed to the learned Sessions Judge, Una who after re-appreciating the entire evidence on record, dismissed the appeal holding that the sentence awarded was on the lesser side and that no further latitude can be shown to the petitioner. The learned Appellate Court followed the decision of the Supreme Court in Dalbir verus State of Haryana AIR 2000 SC 1677. 5. In appeal, it was urged on behalf of the appellant that the learned trial Court had misread the statement of Harjit Singh (PW-1). A plea was raised that since he was a close relative of the deceased, his testimony could not be accepted on its face value but required to be scrutinized with great care and caution. It was also urged that (PW-2) Piara Singh and (PW-3) Mool Raj were procured witnesses since they had not witnessed the accident and no reliance could be placed on their testimony. A submission was also made that the testimony of these two witnesses was contradicted by the evidence of (PW-4) Ram Sarup who had conducted the mechanical examination of the vehicle. 6. The learned Appellate Court has rejected these arguments. One other plea was raised and that was that the car itself was being driven in a rash and negligent speed by the deceased and, therefore, no blame could be laid on the petitioner. 7. The petitioner is now in revision. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that great care and caution is required to assess the evidence of (PW-1) Harjit Singh as he is closely related to the deceased and would naturally support the case of the prosecution 8. This is a very wide and sweeping generalization, which cannot be accepted as a proposition of law. It is but obvious that the person travelling the vehicle would be the most natural witness of the incident and it would be futile to insist on any “independent witness” as urged. Indeed, the insistence of getting independent witnesses, when the occupant of the vehicle being the most natural eye witness to the incident is available, is the testimony of such a witness can only be discarded on non principles of law including the motive of the witness to implicate the accused or the examination-in-chief being shattered in cross-examination in a manner so that the very edifice and foundation of the case set up by the prosecution call for basis. I have gone through the testimony of PW-1, who has corroborated each and every fact with respect to the manner in which the accident took place. There is nothing in his cross-examination which in any manner would make this Court believe that his testimony is unworthy of credence. So far as witnesses, (PW-2) Piara Singh and (PW-3) Mool Raj are concerned, they have stated that they were working nearby in their fields, when they heard a loud noise of a crash, they came to extricate the deceased and the injured from the accidented vehicle. There is nothing to disbelieve the testimony or any material on the record to show that their testimonies are inherently improbable. PW-4 Sarup Lal is the Police Mechanic, who says that he examined the accidented car bearing No. PCT-6633. His report is Ext. PW-4/B. I cannot find anything in his statement or his report to suggest that the petitioner was driving the car in a rash or negligent manner. Inference which the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner wants to draw from this report that it was being driven at a fast speed in a rash and negligent manner, is not possible. There is nothing in the report which suggests or even remotely shows that it is the car which in fact was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. When coupled with the evidence of photographs Ext. PW-6/A to Ext. PW-6/D, there is no doubt in my mind that the conclusions arrived at by the learned Courts below are correct and cannot be interfered with. I have scrutinized the evidence to ascertain as to whether there is any perversity in the appreciation of evidence of the two Courts below and I am unable to persuade myself that such perversity either exists or is proved on the record. 9. On the question of sentencing, I am in complete agreement with the learned Appellate Court that the trial Court has been lenient. In State of Himachal Pradesh versus Mast Ram 2010(1) S.L.J.(H.P.) 246 this Court while adjudicating on the question of sentencing, has held that the petitioners in cases involving rash and negligent driving are not entitled to any leniency. It held: “17. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted for taking lenient view keeping in view that the accident took place about 14 years ago. In Thakur Singh’s case (supra), the Supreme Court after noticing Dalbir Singh versus State of Haryana (2000) 5 SCC 82 has held that Probation of Offenders Act can be extended to the respondent. The respondent crush Arushi aged about 6 years under driver side front wheel of the bus. The persons in control of the vehicles should drive vehicles carefully, cautiously near the educational institutions and when the school children are on the roads. Earlier in State of H.P versus Girdhari Lal, 207 Cri.L.J 4347, the same view has been followed. 10. This petition is accordingly dismissed. A direction is issued that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una shall ensure that this sentence is executed. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. June 3,2010 (HL)