IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Criminal Revision No.63 of 2004. Date of decision: 29.09.2010. Vijay Kumar … …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: Ms.Vidushi Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr.P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General with Mrs.Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud,J. The petitioner has challenged his conviction under Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur, sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for various terms and to pay fine. This judgment has been affirmed by the learned appellate Court on re-appreciation of the entire evidence oral and documentary on record. 2. The brief facts relevant for disposal of this petition are that on 22.12.2000 at 2.45 P.M., the petitioner while driving a bus in a rash and negligent manner entered the bus stand at Hamirpur without blowing horn and ran over the right foot of Manjeet 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 Singh PW-1, who along with Kushal Kumar and Pawan Kumar was standing there. This was witnessed by Kushal Kumar PW-2 and Pawan Kumar PW-3. As a consequence of the rash and negligent act of driving of the petitioner, Manjeet Singh PW-1 fell down and sustained injury. He was moved to the Zonal Hospital Hamirpur, where he was medically treated and MLC Ex.PW-9/A was prepared. The victim Manjeet Singh was referred to Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla for further treatment where he was treated by Dr.L.R. Verma, Assistant Professor, Department of Orthopedics PW-6. He was admitted on 23.12.2000, operated and then discharged after a few days as is evident from Ex.PW-6/A. 3. It was alleged before the learned trial Court that the bus accident was the result of rash and negligent driving. As is evident from Ex.PW-4/A certificate issued by PW-4 Ranjit Singh, Mechanic, who examined the bus, he found no mechanical defect. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the injured Manjeet Singh who was standing in the bus stand near an iron grill fixed in the ground and at the relevant time when petitioner was reversing the bus, Manjeet Singh’s foot accidentally got entangled in the iron grill and he fell down and sustained injuries. The petitioner was not driving the bus rashly and negligently. 5. The learned appellate Court affirmed the findings of guilt, more specifically taking into 3 consideration documentary evidence as well as statements of Manjeet Singh, PW-1, Kushal Kumar, PW-2 and Pawan Kumar PW-3 affirming that the injuries were caused to Manjeet Singh due to rash and negligent driving by the petitioner. The statement made by the injured corroborates all the material facts on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that the findings are perverse and there is no evidence against the petitioner to implicate him in the case. I cannot accept this position. I am unable to persuade myself that the injury was the result of PW-1 falling down himself and not due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by the petitioner. I find no merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed. 6. The accident took place in the year 2000 and the matter is listed before this Court in the year 2010 i.e. after 10 years. It is well settled in the criminal jurisprudence that delay does not nullify the sentence imposed upon accused. 7. In view of above facts and circumstances, this petition is disposed of. The victim Manjeet Singh sustained injury, but at the same time there was no loss to life. In these facts and circumstances it is directed that the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner is set aside. The petitioner will pay Rs.30,000/- to injured Manjeet Singh PW-1 as compensation within four months from today. For this purpose amount shall be deposited in the learned trial 4 Court. The learned trial Court shall ensure that on deposit of such amount the same is paid to the victim Manjeet Singh. In case the amount is not deposited within above stipulated period, the sentence will revive. This petition is disposed of. September 29, 2010. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.