IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.Rev. No. 182 of 2002. Reserved on: 9.4.2009. Decided on: 19.5.2009. ___________________________________________________________ Dharam Chand. … Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. … Respondent. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy.A.G. ______________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 11.9.2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi (H.P.) in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2000 whereby he had confirmed the judgment dated 1.1.2000 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jogindernagar, District Mandi. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this criminal revision petition are that complainant named Kali Dass had gone to attend the marriage of Rajid Khan in village Biru. He went to Bhadiyar from Biru with a ‘Barat’ in a bus bearing No. HP-37-2769. There were 40-50 passengers traveling in the bus. The bus met with an accident on 12.4.1995. It was driven by the petitioner/accused. The challan was put up and the accused was tried by the learned 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jogindernagar, District Mandi. Notice of accusation was put to the accused. He pleaded not guilty. The prosecution had examined twelve witnesses. The statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He had not adduced any evidence. He was convicted by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jogindernagar under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment to one month under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code. He was also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine amount to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one month under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code. He was also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine amount to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one month under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. The accused preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi. He dismissed the appeal on 11.9.2002. The present petition is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi in criminal appeal No. 15 of 2000 dated 11.9.2002. Mr. Bimal Gupta has strenuously argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against his client. He then argued that the bus met with an accident since the ‘Danga’ has given way. 3 The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has supported the judgments passed by both the learned Courts below. I have heard the parties and perused the record carefully. PW-1 Kali Dass was traveling in the bus at the relevant time. He lodged report with the police. He has deposed that he was sitting in the bus and the driver in order to give pass reversed the vehicle at a fast speed and the bus fell from ‘Dhank’. According to him, the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the accused. Kali Dass has also received injuries. PW-2 Bali Khan was also traveling in the bus. He has supported the version of PW-1 Kali Dass. He has categorically deposed that the ‘Danga’ has not given way. PW-3 Nazir Khan deposed that the driver reversed the bus at a fast speed and rear wheel went outside the road resulting in accident. According to him, the driver and conductor jumped from the window and ran away from the spot. PW-4 was examined by PW-9 Dr. Man Singh. He has issued certificate Ext. PW-9/A. Dr. Man Singh had also issued Medico Legal Certificate in regard to Kashmir Singh, Ranjna Kumari, Mahanti, Shukardeen and Farid Khan. What emerges from the statements of the witnesses is that the accused was negligent in driving the bus. He reversed the bus in a rash and negligent manner at a fast speed. In fact, the witnesses have categorically deposed that the ‘Danga’ was not ‘Kacha’. However, the driver was negligent while reversing the bus at a higher speed. Both the Courts below have correctly appreciated the evidence. 4 Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. The conviction of the petitioner is up held. The petitioner be produced to hear on the quantum of sentence on 15.6.2009. In the meantime, report of the Probation Officer, Mandi be also called for. (Rajiv Sharma), J. May 19, 2009. (cr) 5 Cr. Rev. No. 182 of 2002. 15.6.2009 Present: Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy.A.G. for the respondent. Vide judgment dated May 19, 2009, the conviction of the petitioner was up-held in Criminal Revision No. 182 of 2002. The petitioner/accused is a young person aged 43 years. The accident had taken place on 12.4.1995. Fourteen years have elapsed since the offence has taken place. The petitioner was also heard on the question of quantum. He submits that he has two children of 13 years and 11 years. His family is entirely dependent upon his income. He is working as a daily wage labourer. The Court was of the view that the petitioner may be entitled to the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 subject to imposition of certain terms and conditions. The report of the Probation Officer concerned was called for. The Probation Officer, Mandi has submitted the report. According to the report, the petitioner bears a good character and was not involved in any other offence. The Probation Officer has recommended taking a lenient view in the matter. Therefore, in these circumstances while up-holding the conviction of the petitioner, the circumstance do warrant that instead of sentencing the petitioner to jail, the interest of justice would be met in case the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act is accorded to him. As such, the petitioner is ordered to be released on probation by giving him the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to keep peace and be of good 6 behaviour for a period of two years from today. The petitioner shall execute the bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court in terms of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act within three weeks from today. The sentence passed by the learned trial Court and up-held in appeal stand accordingly modified to the above extent. The matter stands disposed of. (Rajiv Sharma), J. June 15, 2009. (cr)