HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.A. No. : 31 of 2003 Decided on: 15.7.2010 State of H.P. ……… Appellant. Versus Dhan Raj ………Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellant: Mr.J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr.Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J.: This is an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the court of learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, dated 14.8.2002, vide which the appeal filed by the present respondent against the findings of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur at Nahan, holding the respondent guilty and convicting and sentencing him under Section 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC, were set aside. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 29.6.2000, the respondent was driving the truck bearing No.HR-29C-8854 at Kala Amb-Nahan road. At about 11.30 a.m., when the truck reached near Mogi Nand High School, it hit a pedestrian child Sumeet, who suffered simple as well as grievous injuries. A statement was made to the police under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. by one Mohinder Singh, who was running a shop near the place of occurrence. On the said ___________________________________________ Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - report, a case was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed before the learned trial Court. The respondent was tried by the learned trial Court and vide its judgment, dated 23.1.2002, he held the respondent guilty under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC and sentenced him as under: Sections 279 and 338 IPC: Fine of Rs.1,000/- for each offence. Section 337 IPC: Fine of Rs.500/-. In all, the respondent was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/-. In default of payment of the fine, the respondent was to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for each default. The amount of fine, on realization, was directed to be paid to the mother of the injured Sumeet. 3. On appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan by the respondent, the appeal was accepted and the findings of the learned trial Court holding the respondent guilty and convicting and sentencing him to pay fine under different Sections, as mentioned above, were set aside. The State has come up in appeal against the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge acquitting the respondent. 4. I have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General for the appellant and Mr.Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate, for the respondent, and have gone through the record of the case. 5. On appraisal of the evidence led by the prosecution, it is clear that there are statements of two eye witnesses, apart from the statement of the injured Sumeet, - 3 - who substantiated the case of the prosecution. PW-1 Mohinder Singh, complainant, has stated that he is running a tailor shop near the School. When injured Sumeet was taking water, one Haryana Roadways bus was standing there and the children were crossing from behind the bus. A truck came from the other side at a fast speed and hit Sumeet, whose both legs were crushed. He further stated that the child was dragged to a distance of about 20-25 feet. He also stated in cross examination that the road is level and plain at the spot and hand pump is near the Bus Stand. Some persons were getting down from the said Haryana Roadways bus and some were trying to board the bus. He admitted that the child suddenly came from behind the bus after taking water. He further stated that there were skid marks of truck at the spot. He denied a specific suggestion that the driver was not negligent in driving the said truck. 6. PW-2 Amarjeet Singh is another eye witness who has also corroborated this statement of the complainant PW-1. He has also stated that the child was dragged to a considerable distance and his both legs were crushed. He has stated that it was raining on that day. The road is a national highway. One Haryana Roadways bus was parked there and the child came from the school side running. He denied if there were any skid marks at the spot. The said injured Sumeet has been examined as PW-4, who has given his age as 12 years and the learned trial Court had satisfied itself that he was a fit witness to depose by putting some questions to him. - 4 - 7. On appraisal of the above evidence led by the prosecution, it is clear that the accident, in question, had taken place near a school as per the statements of the witnesses and as per the site plan Ext.PW-8/A prepared by PW- 8 H.C. Vijay Kumar and there was a board of the school by the side of the road. In such circumstances, when the vehicle was crossing a school, it was the duty of the respondent to drive the vehicle very slowly and with more caution. Moreover, it has come up in evidence that one bus was already parked on one side of the road and the passengers were getting down and were also boarding the bus at the relevant time. In such circumstances, when the passengers were getting down from the bus or boarding it, the driver of the truck i.e. respondent had to be extra cautious and had to drive the truck slowly. This point has to be kept in mind by the driver while driving the vehicle on a national highway near a school or that some bus is standing and passengers are getting down from it or boarding the same. 8. Therefore, it is clear that the respondent had not taken due precaution and the accident took place. Moreover, according to the statement of PW-1 Mohinder Singh, the child was dragged to a distance of 20-25 feet, which clearly shows that the truck was being driven at a fast speed and the driver could not apply the brakes and the child was dragged to a considerable distance. The facts of the case had not been considered by the learned Sessions Judge in its right perspective and there were no reasons to set aside the findings of the learned trial Court holding the respondent - 5 - guilty under various Sections. The findings of the learned trial Court holding the respondent guilty and convicting him were based upon the correct appreciation of evidence and law and did not call for an interference. No appeal had been filed by the State for enhancement of the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Court. Therefore, the present appeal is liable to be accepted and the findings of the learned Sessions Judge are liable to be set aside and those of the learned trial Court holding the respondent guilty and convicting and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/-, as mentioned above, are liable to be restored. 9. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant is accepted and the findings of the learned Sessions Judge are set aside and those of the learned trial Court are restored. The fine shall be deposited within one week, if not already deposited, and a notice of deposit shall be issued to the mother of the injured to receive the money. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. July 15, 2010. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge