IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.R No.132 of 2001 Date of decision : July 15, 2008 Ramesh Kumar …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Yogita Dutta, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. Surjit Singh, Judge( Oral ) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Revision petitioner was tried for offences, punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, for allegedly driving a bus in a rash or negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and, while so driving, causing an accident in which a large number of persons sustained injuries. Some of them sustained even grievous injuries. Trial Court convicted the revision petitioner of offences, under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay fine of Rs.500/- for each of the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo simple imprisonment Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… for 15 days and to pay fine of Rs.200/-, in respect of offence under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Revision petitioner was engaged by the owner of bus No.HP-14-304 to drive the said bus. On 12.10.1998, the bus left Rajgarh for Solan at 8 a.m., with 18 or 19 passengers on board. Around 8.30 a.m. when the bus reached near a place called Matnali, it rolled down the road at a curve. Almost all the passengers sustained injuries, some of them even grievous injuries. 4. Matter was reported to the police. During the course of investigation, vehicle was subjected to mechanical test. Various parts of the bus were found damaged. According to the mechanic, PW-9 Suresh Kumar, the damage was caused as a result of the accident. Passengers of the bus told the police that the bus was being driven very fast and because of the excessive speed, the revision petitioner could not control it, when negotiating a curve and it rolled down the road, towards valley side. 5. On being convicted by the trial Court, revision petitioner filed appeal in the Court of Sessions Judge, which stands dismissed, vide judgment dated 6.9.2001. 6. I have been taken through the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Prosecution examined five passengers, who were travelling by the bus, at the time when the accident took place. Four of them, namely PW-1 Lachhmi Singh, PW-2 Dev Dutt, PW-3 Surinder Kumar and PW-4 Sandhiya Devi testified that the bus was being driven very fast and because of …3… that the driver lost control over it, at the site of the accident, where there was a curve, and because of that the bus rolled down the road. They denied the suggestion put to them that the bus went out of control due to development of some mechanical defect, all of a sudden, at the site of the accident itself. 7. PW-9 Suresh Kumar, Mechanic, testified that the bus did not have any defect prior to the occurrence of the accident but it got damaged, on account of the accident. He has mentioned the detail of damage caused to the bus in his report, Ex. P-25. 8. Fifth passenger, namely PW-15 Rajinder Kumar, examined by the prosecution stated that the bus was being driven at a normal speed. Prosecution cross-examined him with the leave of the Court and contradicted him by confronting him with his statement, under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, mark ‘X’. Therefore, the revision petitioner cannot derive any benefit out of his statement. 9. Defence examined one Tulsi Ram (DW-1), who stated that before the accident took place, he heard sound of breaking of some part of the machinery of the bus and immediately thereafter the bus rolled down. The witness cannot be believed, because it was not suggested to any of the witnesses of the prosecution that before the bus rolled down sound of breaking of any part of the bus was heard nor did the revision petitioner himself say so in his examination, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He simply …4… stated that the bus developed some defect, due to which the brake system went out of order, at the site of the accident and the brakes did not work, when he tried to apply the same. 10. A specific suggestion was thrown to PW-9 Suresh Kumar, Mechanic, that tie-rod of the bus got broken before the occurrence of the accident and because of that the brake did not work, when the revision petitioner tried to apply it. He denied the suggestion that brake becomes non-functional, on account of breaking of tie-rod. 11. Learned counsel representing the revision petitioner has argued that PW-9 did not have any idea of the working system of power brake, per his own admission in the cross- examination and, therefore, his statement that brake does not cease to be functional, on account of the braking of the tie-rod, cannot be accepted. The argument is of no consequence, because there is nothing on the record suggesting that the brake system of the bus was based on power mechanism and not the ordinary mechanism. 12. For the foregoing reasons, I see no merit in the present revision petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. July 15, 2008(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J