IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Rev. No. 43 of 2004. Date of Decision:8.9.2010.. _______________________________________________ Raj Kumar. ….Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ….Respondent. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the petitioner :Mr. Vinay Thakur, Advocate. For Respondent. :Mr.P.K.Sharma, Addl. Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). The petitioner challenges his conviction under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code for which he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for four months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for offence under Section 279 I.P.C. and simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.2,000/- for offences under Section 304-A I.P.C. Both the sentence were ordered to run concurrently. This sentence has been confirmed by the learned appellate Court. The prosecution case in brief is that on 26.11.1991, information was received by ASI Sh. Krishan Kumar (PW8), who was on patrolling duty at bus stand Chowk, Una that an accident has occurred at a place near Ayurvedic Office. He along with other police officials rushed to the spot where Hari Kishan (PW1) told him that at Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? yes. 2 around 3.30 p.m, he was standing outside the shop of Surinder Singh, Karyana Merchant and was talking to him he saw Darshan Lal along with his wife Smt.Santosh Kumari (PW3) walking on the road on their left side. A truck bearing registration No HPA-2355 being driven by the petitioner, struck Darshan Lal with the front tyre and crossed over him and his body was jammed under the rear tyre of the truck. All these people raised a hue and cry and the truck was stopped. The injured Darshan Lal was removed to the District Hospital, Una where he was declared dead. There are three eye witnesses to this case PW1 Harikishan, PW2 Surender Singh and PW3 Smt.Santosh Kumari. Considering the evidence especially that of PW1 Harikishan and PW2 Surender Singh, the learned trial Court holds that the truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. This witness stated that on seeing the truck rushing down the road, PW3 Santosh Kumari jumped down from the road and her husband deceased Darshan Lal was hit by the truck, run over by the front wheel and then his body was dragged under the rear wheel. The identity of the petitioner has also been established. PW3 Smt. Santosh Kumari who is the wife of deceased Darshan Lal. Though PW2 Surender Singh has been declared hostile, but there is nothing in his cross-examination which could in any manner detract from proving the manner in which the incident has taken place or the identity of the accused. In appeal this finding has been affirmed. It is urged before the learned appellate Court that there are contradictory versions on the record of the case with respect to the incident. Learned court did not accept this submission after considering the evidence of the prosecution including the fact that PW2 Surender Singh has been declared hostile. 3 In revision, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner urges that the testimony of PW2 Surender Singh was clear and cogent to the effect that neither he nor PW1 Harikishan had witnessed the accident. The evidence has been wrongly appreciated and a perverse finding has been arrived at. Another point urged is that there were skid marks on the road which shows that the petitioner had, in fact, applied the brakes and that the deceased himself was negligent. Photographs Ext.PW6/A, Ext.PW6/B and Ext.PW6/C clearly show that the truck was being driven on its left side and no negligence of rashness can be attributed to him. In fact the deceased contributed to his own death by walking carelessly on the road. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. I cannot persuade myself to accept the first contention that the accident has not been established. Even if the testimony of PW2 Surender Singh is ignored, the evidence of PW1 Harikishan and PW3 Smt. Santosh Kumari is clear, cogent and unequivocal on the manner in which the accident has occurred. PW1 Harikrishan gives a vivid description of how the truck which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner struck against the deceased and dragged him under the rear wheel, while the lady (PW3) jumped off the side of the road to save herself. PW3 Santosh Kumari wife of the deceased is corroborated on each material particular by this witness. There is nothing in their cross examination which would render their testimony unworthy of credence. In these circumstances even if the evidence of PW2 Surender Singh is ignored, it would not make any difference to the case of the prosecution. In his cross-examination PW2 Surender Singh, who has resiled from the statement made before the police, I do not find anything to support the case of the petitioner that the accident 4 had not occurred. But If the testimony of PW2 is taken as it is, it does not disprove the case of the prosecution. This submission, therefore, requires to be rejected. So far as the other submissions are concerned, they cannot be said to be consistent only with the innocence of the petitioner. If the brakes have been applied and skid marks are present on the road, it would indicate that the truck was being driven at a fast speed. Moreover the fact that PW3 Smt. Santosh Kumari jumped into a ditch to save herself and the deceased was hit by the front wheel, run over and his body dragged under the rear wheel, is a very graphic description about the way in which the accident occurred. I do not find any perversity in the appreciation of the evidence. This revision petition is therefore rejected. On the question of sentence, what I find from the record is that the accident occurred in the year 1991 and the evidence had recorded in 1996. Now this case comes up before this Court after a period of practically 19 years. The cases of rash and negligent driving have become rampant and menace to the society and endangering the life of law binding citizen. On more than one occasion, the Supreme Court has observed that such cases are to be dealt with sternly and the offender is not entitled to the benefit of the probation of Offenders Act. {See: Dalbir Singh V. State of Haryana, (2000) 5 SCC 82, State of H.P. V. Girdhari Lal, 2007 Cri.L.J. 4347 and State of Himachal Pradesh V. Mast Ram, 2010 (1) S.L.J. (HP) 246.} However, in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to three months for both offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. The sentence shall run concurrently. The fine imposed by 5 the learned trial Court is sustained. Bail bonds furnished by the petitioner are cancelled. A direction is issued to the learned trial Court to execute the judgment and sentence. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the learned trial Court for execution of the sentence forthwith. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. September 8, 2010(R)