IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.R No.6 of 2002 Date of decision : October 15, 2008 Partap Chand …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashutosh Buradhoki, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. Surjit Singh, Judge( Oral ) Through the present revision petition, judgments of trial Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge (passed in appeal against the judgment of the trial Court) have been assailed. Trial Magistrate, vide his judgment dated 25th May, 2001, convicted the revision petitioner of offences, under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in respect of offences, under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in respect of offence, under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. Revision petitioner appealed against the judgment to the Sessions Judge. The matter came to be decided by the Additional Sessions Judge, vide judgment dated 7th December, 2001, whereby the appeal was dismissed. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 2. Case of the prosecution, as it emerges from the evidence on record, is as follows. On 7th April, 1995, around 6.15 p.m., Dr. Ravinder Kumar (PW-1), alongwith one Ashok Kumar (PW-2), was going on his motorcycle from Palampur to Gopalpur, when he saw a tempo, bearing registration No.ABT-9915, coming from the opposite direction, in a shaky manner, at a fast speed. Fearing that the tempo might ram into his motorcycle, he brought the motorcycle to a halt and went up the hillside of the road alongwith the pillion rider Ashok Kumar. The tempo then came towards his motorcycle, over ran it and turned turtle. There were a number of persons on board the tempo. One of them died and others sustained injuries, some of them grievous ones. 3. Matter was reported to the police by PW-1 Dr. Ravinder Kumar. Investigation was conducted by the police. Revision petitioner, who was driving the tempo, was challaned. He was charged with the offences, he has been convicted of. He pleaded not guilty. Therefore, trial was held. 4. Learned counsel representing the revision petitioner has taken me through the testimony of PW-1 Dr. Ravinder Kumar, PW-2 Ashok Kumar, who was riding the pillion of the motorcycle of PW-1 Dr. Ravinder Kumar, PW-4 Hem Chand, one of the persons on board the tempo, in question, and PW-7 Kuldeep Singh, who conducted the mechanical test of the tempo, after the accident took place. 5. PW-1 Dr. Ravinder Kumar stated in the examination-in- chief that the tempo was at a very slow speed when it over ran into his stationary motorcycle, meaning thereby that the tempo was not being driven at excessive speed, as alleged by the prosecution. In the cross- examination, the witness stated that the tempo was seen moving on …3… two tyres, when it appeared after negotiating a turn. PW-2 Ashok Kumar, who was riding the pillion of motorcycle of PW-1 Dr. Ravinder Kumar, very categorically stated that when the tempo appeared, after negotiating the turn, he saw that its tyres were moving not straightly but unsteadily and the driver was unable to steer it. PW-4 Hem Chand stated that the vehicle was being driven at normal speed, when it met with an accident. Mechanic, PW-7 Kuldeep Singh, stated that the tie- rod of the tempo had loosened. He admitted that when the tie-rod gets loosened, the vehicle goes out of the control of the driver. 6. The evidence probablises the defence plea that the tempo went out of the control of the driver, because of some mechanical defect. The evidence on record clearly indicates that this was not a case of accident due to rash or negligent driving of the vehicle, but on account of sudden development of mechanical defect in the vehicle. Learned trial Court as also the appellate Court have not taken notice of the aforesaid evidence as also the defence plea. 7. As a result of the abovestated position, it is held that the revision petitioner is not guilty of rash or negligent driving, endangering human life or personal safety of others and thereby causing death of one and injuries to several other occupants of the tempo. So, the revision petition is allowed and the judgments of the trial Magistrate as also the appellate Court are set aside. Revision petitioner is acquitted. Revision petition stands disposed of. October 15, 2008(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J