IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Rev. No. 236 of 2003. Date of Decision:4.8.2010. _______________________________________________ Puni Ram. ….Petitioner. Versus. State of H.P. ….Respondent. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant : Ms. Vidushi Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent. : Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment of both the courts below convicting and sentencing him for offences under Sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 1.9.1999 at around 1.50 p.m., the doctor at Civil Hospital, Karsog informed the police on telephone that one Smt. Dharama Vati is admitted to the hospital owing to the injuries which she received in the accident. On this, Head Constable No. 63 Sh. Karam Singh went to the hospital and recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?yes. 2 Procedure and accordingly, First Information Report was registered. Complainant Dharama Vati alleged that she and her husband were coming towards the H.P.PWD Rest House Baral from Karsog after they returned from Delhi. When they were on the way, a scooter of light black colour which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner hit the complainant as also her husband and both of them fell down. The leg of the complainant was injured in the accident. The scooter was identified as DL-05-E-6517 being driven by the petitioner. 3. The learned trial Court, after consideration of the evidence on record as also the defence put up by the petitioner that it was the fault of the pedestrians, namely, the complainant and her husband which was the cause of the accident, held the petitioner guilty for offences under Sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He, accordingly, sentenced the petitioner to simple imprisonment for a term of three months under Section 279 I.P.C. and three months simple imprisonment under Section 338 I.P.C and fine of Rs. 300/- each under both the Sections. A fine of Rs. 500/- was imposed upon the petitioner for offences punishable under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 4. The learned Sessions Judge re-appreciated the entire evidence on record and the case put up by the petitioner was rejected. He also came to the conclusion that 3 the petitioner was not having a driving license to drive the scooter. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has stressed that the evidence of three defence witnesses, namely, DW1 Sh. Pune Ram, DW2 Sh. Khushi Ram and DW3 Sh. Virender Kumar was not considered by the learned courts below. She submits that according to these witnesses, it was the contributory negligence of both the complainant and her husband when they started crossing the road which was the cause of the accident. This version has not been believed by the learned trial Court. The court takes assistance of the site plan as also the testimony of the other witnesses on the record reach this conclusion. I am not persuaded to accept that the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court are perverse. 6. Though, it is urged by the learned Additional Advocate General that the cases of accident has become rampant and a strict action is called for and in a revision no interference is called for by this Court, however, considering the fact that the incident relates to the year 1999 and a period of more than 11 years has elapsed, I do not think that any useful purpose would be served in upholding the sentence of imprisonment. Instead, looking to the injuries sustained by complainant Smt.Dharama Vati I deem it proper to award a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the injured. This amount shall be deposited by the petitioner before the learned trial Court within a period of eight weeks from today. 4 It is clarified that in case such amount is not deposited, the sentence of imprisonment shall revive and the trial Court shall ensure that the sentence be executed in accordance with law. The fine amount when deposited shall be paid to complainant Smt. Dharama Vati. It is also clarified that this amount shall not be deducted which may have already been awarded to the complainant under any petition filed under the Motor Vehicles Act or under any other civil action. The petition is disposed of. Bail bonds furnished by the petitioner shall stand discharged. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. August 4, 2010(R)