IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Criminal Revision No. 36 of 2004 Date of Decision: 15th September, 2010 __________________________________________________________ Jagdish Chand ….Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ….Respondent. ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. ___________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. K.S. Kanwar, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General with Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J (oral). The petitioner is aggrieved by his conviction under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the Courts below. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 7.2.1998 the petitioner was driving a HRTC bus bearing No. HP-28-0616 on a public highway and when the bus reached near Hiranagar, it dashed against Taxi No. HP-02-2107, which was driven by Rajinder Singh. As a result of the accident, PW8 Rajinder Singh, who was the driver, received grievous injuries and PW4 Rama Devi and PW5 Vinod Mehta sustained simple 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?Yes. 2 injuries. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses in all. Out of them, the main witness, PW8 Rajinder Singh has stated that he was driving his maruti van No. HP-02-2107 and was coming to Shimla alongwith his brother-in-law Vinod and sister Rama and their two daughters. At about 2-30 when they reached near Hiranagar, bus No. HP-28-0616 which was coming from Shimla side and was driven in rash or negligent manner, struck against the van, as a result of which, he received grievous injuries and other two occupants received simple injuries. They were taken to IGMC, Shimla where his statement was recorded and consequently FIR No. 24 of 1998 was registered. 3. To similar effect are the statements of PW4 Rama Mehta and PW5 Vinod Mehta, the occupants of the van, who have corroborated the statement of PW8 on all material particulars. PW3 Dr. Lalit Mahajan has medically examined PW8 Rajinder Singh and found three injuries on his person and referred to him for X-ray and after the receipt of report Ext.PW3/B, he issued medico legal certificate Ext.PW3/A and injury No. 2 according to him was grievous and other injuries were simple in nature. On the same date, he examined Vinod Mehta, PW5 the other injured and PW4 Rama Mehta and found that they were suffering from simple injuries and accordingly he also issued their medico legal certificates which are Ext.PW3/C and Ext.PW3/D. He also examined Seema and Sunil and found injuries as detailed in Ext.PW3/E and Ext.PW3/F. 4. PW1 ASI Vidya Sagar investigated the case and photographs of the occurrence were taken by PW11. In the totality of the circumstances, including the spot map and the photographs, the Court found that the petitioner was guilty of the offences as charged and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for six months and find of Rs. 500/- for offence under Section 279 IPC, fine of Rs. 500/- for commission of 3 offence punishable under Section 337 IPC and simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 1000/- for commission of offence under Section 338 IPC. All sentences were ordered to run concurrently. In case of non- payment of fine, the Court sentenced him to undergo various terms of imprisonment. 5. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge re-appreciated the entire evidence and has re-affirmed the sentence. 6. One of the points which was urged before the learned Sessions Judge was that the driver of van PW8 who himself was driving the van negligently at an excessive speed and even though the petitioner had stopped his bus, PW8 Rajinder Singh hit his van with the bus head on. It was also suggested to Rajinder PW8 that he could not get sufficient sleep on the previous night and he had consumed liquor. But these suggestions were denied by this witness and no cogent evidence was placed on record either as to consumption of liquor or to suggest that at the time of accident he was drunk and due to this, he was driving the van in rash or negligent manner. The learned Appellate Court accepted the evidence of prosecution and dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and sentence imposed by the learned trial Court. 7. In appeal, it has been urged before me that statements of PW2 Surinder Kumar, PW3 Dr. Lalit Mahajan, PW4 Rama, PW5 Vinod Mehta, PW8 Rajinder Kumar and PW11 ASI Raj Kumar had been misappreciated by the learned Courts below as the reading of these statements would show that accident did not occur in the manner as alleged. Adverting to the statement of PW11, I find that he had taken the photographs of the spot where accident took place. I need not make any reference to the photographs, as these have only been marked and not proved in evidence. If the photographs were duly proved in evidence, then 4 these would have conclusively established without any other evidence that accident had occurred due to the negligence of the bus and not of the van. 8. Adverting to the statements of other three witnesses namely Rajinder Singh, Rama and Vinod, I do not find any contradiction in their statements and their evidence is clear and cogent to prove the manner in which the accident had taken place. 9. It is urged by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the statement of one witness contradicts that of the other. I am unable to persuade myself to hold that there is any contradiction in the statements of witnesses. 10. So far as the statement of PW3 Dr. Lalit Mahajan is concerned, he proved the injuries as per the medico legal certificates. It is obvious that he could not state anything as to whether accident had taken place as alleged or not. In these circumstances, there is no merit in this revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed. 8. Turning to the question of sentencing, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the accident is one of 1998, hence no useful and fruitful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars. In Dalbir Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2000) 5 SCC 82, which was later on followed by this Court in State of H.P. Vs. Girdhari Lal, 2007 Cri. L.J. 4347 and State of H.P. vs. Mast Ram, 2010 (1) S.L.J. 246, the Supreme Court and this Court held that cases of accident are to be dealt with strenuously and that no benevolent view can be taken. The Court observes that since the accidents have become rampant, a deterrent view should be taken not only to protect the pedestrians and users of the road. However, considering the fact that this case relates to the year 1998, instead of sentencing the petitioner to 5 undergo imprisonment, I direct that a sum of Rs. 30,00/- shall be paid by him as compensation to three victims namely PW8 Rajinder Singh, PW4 Rama Mehta and PW5 Vinod Mehta. This amount shall be deposited before the learned trial Court within a period of three months from today. Out of total amount, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- shall be paid to PW8 Rajinder Singh and a sum of Rs. 7500/- each to other two victims namely Rama Mehta and Vinod Mehta. It is clarified that in case the amount is not deposited during this period, the sentence of imprisonment shall revive. On deposit of such amount, the learned trial Court shall disburse the money to these three victims of accident. It is also clarified that in case of non-payment of fine, sentence of imprisonment shall revive and the petitioner shall undergo sentence of imprisonment as imposed by the trial Court. Petition stands disposed of. (Dev Darshan Sud) Judge September 15th , 2010(ms)