IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Revision No. 1 of 2004. Date of Decision: 27.7.2010. _______________________________________________ Shyam Lal ….Petitioner. Versus. State of H.P. ….Respondent. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant : Mr.R.P.Singh, Advocate. For Respondent. : Mr. P.K.Sharma, Addl. Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment of both the courts below sentencing him for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case is that on 7.5.1998 PW7 Ramji Dass had visited the market at Lakhanpur. When he was returning at around 10.30 a.m. and crossing National High Way No. 21, the petitioner was driving Maruti Van No. PB-08E-3295 from Bilaspur to Nalagarh in which PW1 Gian Chand complainant was sitting in the back seat, the van was being driven in a rash and negligent manner knocked down PW7 Ramji Dass, who sustained injuries. Report was lodged Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? yes. 2 by the complainant and his statement Ext.PA was recorded by the police. Learned trial Court on the evidence on record, found that the injuries have been caused by the petitioner which fact was corroborated both by PW7 Sh.Ramji Dass and PW5 Prem Lal who were sitting in the van. PW1 Sh. Gian Chand was declared hostile but on the totality of the evidence including his cross-examination, the factum of the accident stood established. This was challenged in appeal by the petitioner herein before the learned Sessions court who has thoroughly examined the evidence on record including the defence taken by the respondent that the injured was under the influence of liquor which point was negatived. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and have gone through the record. No doubt, learned counsel has argued with vehemence that the accident has not occurred owing to the negligence of the petitioner and the evidence established that it was the injured, who was himself responsible for this act and thus sustained injuries. He then submits that the star witness in this case has been declared hostile and no reliance can be placed on his evidence. I have considered the evidence on record as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. I do not find that the courts below have acted in a perverse manner. 3 On the question of sentencing, the learned counsel submits that the incident relates to the year 1998 and a period of more than 12 years has elapsed and no useful purpose would be served for sending the petitioner behind the bar. This principle cannot be accepted as a general `proposition of law as it would mitigate the rigors of sentencing which has now been held by the Supreme Court in more than one case that rash and negligent driving has become rampant and that this menace requires to be controlled. I deem it proper that the substantive sentence of imprisonment can be set aside more especially when no injury maiming the complainant has been established on the record. The conviction of the petitioner is upheld and the sentence of fine shall remain intact. In addition, it is directed that the petitioner herein shall pay Rs.25,000/- as fine to the injured which amount be deposited before the trial Court within a period of ten weeks from today. It is clarified that in case such deposit is not made during this time, the sentence of imprisonment shall revive. A direction is issued to the learned trial Court to execute the sentence in accordance with law. The fine amount when deposited shall be paid to the complainant Ramji Dass. The petition is accordingly disposed of. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. July 27, 2010(R) 4