IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Revision 14 of 2005 Date of Decision 30th May ,2011 ________________________________________________________ Rajinder Singh ….Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ….Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. ________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. M.S. Guleria, Advocate. For the Respondent: Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy A.G. ______________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J (oral) The petitioner has been convicted for offences under Sections 279 and 304A IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and fine to the tune of ` 500/- for the commission of offence under Section 304-A IPC and in default of payment of fine, one month simple imprisonment. No separate sentence was imposed upon the petitioner for offence under Section 279 IPC. The learned Court had noted that since the 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 offence arose out of the same act, therefore invoked Section 71 of the IPC. 2. In appeal, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner herein have been affirmed. 3. The prosecution case is that FIR 270/96 dated 4.11.1996 was registered with Police Station Sundernagar on the allegations that on 4.11.1996 PW10 Jieunu alongwith his wife PW3 Darshanu, daughter Kumari Babli and Lekh Raj were going to village Sakroha to attend some function. While they were waiting for the bus near Bus Stand Sundernagar at the exit point at about 12.15 PM, the accused came there by in a truck which he was driving from Chatrokhari side towards Mandi and hit Kumari Babli who was standing on the side. She was crushed under the rear tyre of the vehicle. She died on the spot. PW8 Hem Singh, who was on traffic duty, was a witness of this accident and he reported the matter to the police. His statement Ext.PW8/A under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded and on that basis FIR Ext.PW9/E was registered. Investigation was conducted by PW11 who visited the spot and prepared site plan Ext.PW11/A. 3. On conclusion of the investigation, the petitioner herein was arraigned and charged for offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. The case of the petitioner was one of the denial simpliciter. On the points formulated by the learned trial Court, i.e. on the first defence put up by the petitioner that he was not driving the truck, the learned trial Court took into consideration the evidence of PW1 Shyam Lal, owner of truck No. HP-34-0865 and stated on oath that the accused was driving the truck at the relevant time and that the petitioner had informed 3 him about the accident. The Court further relied upon the testimony of PW8 Hem Singh, HHG who was on traffic duty. The second point for consideration before the learned trial Court was as to whether the truck was being driven in rash or negligent manner and the third point as to whether deceased Kumari Babli died as a result of this accident. For this, the learned Court relied upon the evidence of PW4 Dr. Indira Kaushal, Medical Officer, who conducted the post mortem of the deceased and report Ext.PW4/A. The learned Court also took into consideration the statement of PW3 Darshanu Devi and PW7 Lekh Ram that the deceased was crushed underneath the tyres of this truck. Photographs Ext.P2 and Ext.P3 were also taken by the Court into consideration which show that deceased Kumari Babli badly crushed lying on the road. On the last point, again relying upon the evidence of these witnesses and also photographs Ext.P2 and Ext.P3, the learned Court held that there was no doubt whatsoever that Kumari Babli had died as a result of rash or negligent driving. When these points were re-agitated before the learned Appellate Court, it rejected the contention on behalf of the petitioner herein that according to site plan Ext.PW9/A there can be no question of rash or negligent driving as the plan did not support the case of prosecution. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has urged that the evidence of PWs 7 and 8 eye witnesses does not support the case of prosecution. I have given my careful and anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel as also the evidence on record. I cannot subscribe to the fact that the petitioner is not guilty of rash or negligent driving. 4 Photographs themselves may not be conclusive evidence of rashness or negligence. However, taking into consideration the entirety of evidence, there is no doubt in my mind that the deceased had been run over and crushed badly. I do not find any merit in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that he is innocent and that accident is not the result of rash or negligent driving. 5. It is the question of sentence which has been troubling this Court time and again. The settled principle is that length of time does not mitigate criminality. The accident had occurred in 1996. The case remained pending in the trial Court for five years and thereafter before the learned Appellate Court for another two years. The petitioner then approached this Court in 2005 and I am considering this case again after a period of six years. Who is to be blamed for the delay in disposal of the case is something on which I need not comment at this juncture. But nonetheless by the rash and negligent act, innocent life has been snuffed out. 6. Submission made by the learned counsel is that the petitioner be released on probation, cannot be accepted, as the petitioner had concocted his involvement before the learned trial Court and denied the accident. 7. Without considering this case as a precedent, I think that it is a case in which sentence of imprisonment should be reduced to four months and the fine maintained. Ordered accordingly. The petitioner shall further pay a sum of ` 50,000/- before the learned trial Court within a period of three months from today. On such deposit being made, the amount shall be 5 paid to the family of the deceased. It is clarified that in case this amount is not deposited the petitioner shall undergo sentence as imposed by the learned trial Court. 8. I have often noticed that in cases under the Motor Vehicle Act where a person has been convicted for rash or negligent driving, there seems to be no follow up action taken by the State although there are ample powers under the Motor Vehicles Act to examine/re-examine the validity of the license issued to such a driver to ensure that he drives safely. A reading of Section 16 of the Act clearly vests this power in the appropriate authority. I direct that the petitioner shall again be tested by the Motor Vehicles Inspector to ascertain whether he is a fit person to drive transport vehicle or not. I also direct that in all cases of fatal accidents or serious injury, the Secretary (Transport) shall direct the Licensing Authority to examine such drivers again and put them to test in order to ascertain that their driving does not cause harm to any other person’s life and safety. Petition stands disposed of. 9. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Chief Secretary and the Secretary (Transport) for necessary compliance. May 30th, 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud), ms Judge 6