1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH , SHIMLA Cr. Revision No.: 140 of 2001 Decided on: 2.7.2008 Kisohori Lal Petitioner Versus State of H.P. Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No. For the petitioner: Mr.G.D.Verma, Senior Advocate. With Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. J.S.Guleria, Law Officer. Surinder Singh.J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been filed by the convict, feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment of conviction and sentence, passed by the learned trial court which was affirmed in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla, whereby he has been convicted and sentenced as follows: Under section 279 IPC to pay a fine of Rs.500/- Under section 337 IPC to pay a fine of Rs.200/- Under section 338 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- in default of payment of fine undergo to simple imprisonment for a further period of six months In brief, prosecution case is. The petitioner herein was a driver of HRTC Bus bearing registration No.HP-06-2029. On 12.4.1993 at about 10.30 a.m. while going to Jhakri, reached 2 Shalaghat. A truck bearing registration No.HPS 6294, which was being driven by Brij Mohan (PW8) was ahead of it. It is alleged that the petitioner while rashly and negligently over took the truck aforesaid and hit the scooterist PW5 Jatinder, coming from the opposite side. The scooter got damaged and (PW5) Jatinder sustained fracture of his leg. The accident was reported to the police. Police recorded the statement Ex.PW5/A of PW5 Jatinder, under section 154 Cr.P.C, on the basis of which FIR Ex.PW-5/B was recorded. Injured was taken to the hospital, where he was examined by PW2 Dr. Suman Gupta. Police prepared the site plan Ex.PW7/A, took into possession the medical certificate of the injured. Bus and scooter were taken into possession. Both the vehicles were got mechanically examined by (PW1) Vidya Sagar, motor mechanic and his report is Ex.PW1/A. After completing the investigation of the case the challan was presented in the court for trial of the petitioner. He was charge sheeted for the aforesaid offences, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution led its evidence. The petitioner was also examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. At the end of the trial, he was convicted and sentenced as referred to above. The petitioner challenged his conviction and sentence, before the Sessions Court. After reappraising the evidence on record, appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Now the petitioner has filed the instant revision petition before this court, on the grounds that the courts below while appreciating the evidence on record ignored the material contradictions, which renders the prosecution case doubtful, thus committed the material irregularity and illegality. 3 Shri G.D.Verma, learned Senior Advocate, has vehemently argued that the approach adopted by the both the courts below, while appreciating the evidence on record, is perverse. In fact, two views are deducible from the evidence on record and the courts below did not take into account the view favorable to the petitioner. Learned counsel has also pointed out the material contradictions, occurring in the statements of the injured Jatinder (PW5) and important admission made by the truck driver Brij Mohan which contributed the accident. In nutshell it is submitted that if the statements are taken into account, it will exonerate the petitioner from the offences charged. Shri J.S.Guleria, learned Law Officer has supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court and affirmed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge. According to him, there is no material irregularity and illegality as alleged, committed by the learned trial courts while returning the findings of guilt of the appellant. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. As a matter of fact, while going through the statement of PW5 Jatinder, a material fact has come into notice that he had admitted that the truck driver had given a signal to the bus driver to cross, which fact has been admitted by PW8 Brij Mohan in so many words in his cross-examination. It is also a fact that the scooterist was coming from the opposite side on the National Highway on a high speed and darted against the bus, so no fault could have been attributed to the bus driver, as from the circumstances on record, he 4 appears to have taken all due care and caution while over taking his bus and he tried to cross the truck on the clearance given by the truck driver. Thus two views are deducible from the evidence on record, the view which is favourable to the petitioner has to be taken into account. In my opinion, the bus driver has rationally acted in the situation with which he was faced. Therefore, the appellant cannot be held guilty for the rashness or negligence as alleged since it was an unexpected act. After examining the legality and propriety of the judgment of the learned trial court and that of the appellate court, I have found both the verdicts holding the petitioner guilty, unsustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore set aside. Consequently, the petitioner stands acquitted of the charges framed against him, fine if deposited be refunded to him. The revision petition stands accordingly allowed. Record of the both the courts below be returned. July 2, 2008 (Surinder Singh),J. (D)