IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Rev.No.176 of 2003. Date of Decision: 25.5.2010. _______________________________________________ Ram Nath Giri. ….Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ….Respondent. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the petitioner : Mr. M.L.Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent. : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). This revision petition has been instituted by the petitioner challenging the judgment and sentence imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.2, Paonta Sahib, sentencing him for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 279 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 304-A IPC and a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The case of the prosecution is that on 12.2.1999 at about 8.40 p.m., the police received an information that a dead body of one Sh.Kamal Arora was lying close to a Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? yes. 2 scooter bearing registration No. HNE-5057 on the un-mettled portion of the road. There was also one bicycle with its front tyre damaged. One truck bearing registration No. URM-0955 which was going to Badripur side was also standing there. Its tyre was found having blood stains. The case made out is that the accident had taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of truck No URM-0955 which caused the death of Kamal Arora and also crushed into one cycle. The driver of the truck had fled away from the spot. Nine witnesses were examined by the prosecution in this case. The evidence of Sh. Satish Gupta (PW-3) was considered by the learned trial Court. This witness stated that on 12.2.1999 at about 8.15 p.m. at night, he was proceeding to his house and he saw that a truck bearing registration No. URM-0955 was coming from Badripur side at a high speed and hit the scooterist. He identified Ram Nath the petitioner herein and the person who was driving the vehicle at the time of occurrence. He witnessed the accident and saw the truck colliding with the scooter which was on the correct side. He says in his evidence that the driver was in a drunken state. PW-4 Sh.D.C.Madan states that on the same day at about 8.15 p.m. he was walking towards his house with his bicycle. When he reached near the office of H.P.S.E.B, a truck bearing registration No URM-0955 hit him as a result of which he fell down and became unconscious. He says that when he regained conscious, he recollected that the truck had also dashed into the scooter. 3 On the evidence on record, the trial court concluded that the petitioner was guilty of the offences, as charged. This judgment and sentence has been affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge. The Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record modified the sentence. The petitioner is now in revision. On the facts, I do not find that in revisional jurisdiction, I can interfere in this case. However, on the quantum of sentence, what requires to be noticed is that at the time when the petitioner herein was sentenced he was near about 75 years of age. No useful purpose would now be served by sending him to undergo the remaining sentence of imprisonment. In these circumstances, I direct that the sentence of imprisonment shall not be imposed upon the petitioner but for the offences committed, he shall be liable to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- in all. This order has been passed keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is now 85 years of age where he is in the sun set of his life and no useful purpose would be served by sending him to under go sentence of imprisonment. This judgment shall not be treated as a precedent for other cases. The fine shall be deposited before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paonta Sahib within a period of two months from today. The petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. May 25, 2010(R)