IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Rev. No. 52 of 2004. Date of Decision: 13.9.2010. _______________________________________________ Naseeb Singh ….Appellant. Versus. State of H.P. ….Respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? For the petitioner :Mr.N.K.Thakur, Advocate. For Respondent. :Mr.Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. Advocate General with Ms.Shubh Mahajan, Dy. Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). The petitioner challenges his conviction for offences under Sections 279,337, 338, 304-A of the Indian Penal Code sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for offences for various terms. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 13.6.1993 Sh. Gurbachan Chand (PW1) reported to the police at around 9.20 a.m. when he along with five members of his family were going for darshan to ‘Baba Gareeb Nath’ at village Kothi in a tractor bearing No. HP-20-0884 being driven by the petitioner, he started driving the tractor in a rash and negligent manner. PW1 along with 30 other persons were traveling in the trolley of tractor, request the petitioner Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? 2 not to drive in this manner but he did not listen to them. PW1 and five other persons jumped out of the trolley and the remaining people remained there. The petitioner was also jumped from the tractor leaving the steering as it is with the result that it crashed into a Nullah, turned turtle and Smt. Ramo Devi, Nirmala Devi, Poonam, Darshana, Keshri, Rajo Devi, Yumana Devi, Mahanti Devi, Giyatri Devi and Banti Devi sustained injuries in the accident. Ramo Devi later on succumbed to her injuries in the hospital. 3. On the evidence before the trial Court, especially PW1 Gurbachan Chand and PW2 Nirmala Devi, who were the eye witnesses and were riding in the tractor, the learned trial Court concluded that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt as the rash and negligent acts of the petitioner herein including the fact that he jumped from the running tractor leaving the steering with the result that it crashed into a Nullah. The court accordingly convicted the petitioner to undergo sentences for the offences as noticed hereinbefore. 4. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, did not accept the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and concluded that despite requests having been made to him, he did not drive the tractor in a safe manner. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned Additional Advocate General and gone through the record. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner urges that the accident was not attributable to the acts of the petitioner but was an act of God as the tractor was going down hill and in these circumstances he lost the control of the vehicle. Learned counsel submits that the finding of the courts below that he jumped out of the 3 tractor was itself sufficient to establish the fact that it was a mechanical fault. 6. Having gone through the evidence on record, I am unable to persuade myself to hold that the accident did not occur due to the rash and negligent act of the petitioner. The evidence of the witnesses especially PW1 and the other witnesses as noticed hereinbefore is clear and cogent on the point that the petitioner herein had been requested to drive the tractor at a slow speed but instead of heeding to that advice, he himself jumped from it, putting the life of all passengers in jeopardy. In these circumstances, I do not find that the conclusion of courts below that it was a rash and negligent act on the part of the petitioner, can be faulted with. 7. Coming to the aspect of the witnesses, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he should be released on probation considering the fact that the accident took place in June, 1993 and that a period of more than 17 years has elapsed. I cannot accept this submission. Learned counsel also places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Manish Jalan Vs. State of Karnataka, (2008) 8 S.C.C. 225 to urge that even if a finding of guilt is returned, the provisions of Section 357 should and ought to be invoked instead of sentencing the petitioner to imprisonment. 8. In the present case, I do not find that the petitioner has undergone the sentence of imprisonment. In these circumstances, the only modification of sentence which can be made is that instead of one year, the petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months for offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A I.P.C. All sentences shall run concurrently and fine imposed by the courts below is sustained. The trial Court will ensure that the 4 sentence is duly executed. Bail bonds furnished by the petitioner shall stand cancelled. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. September 13,2010.(R)