IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.R No.104 of 2001 Date of decision : July 1, 2008 Yog Raj …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. Surjit Singh, Judge( Oral ) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Revision petitioner was tried for offences, punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, for allegedly driving bus No.HP-48-0837 in so rash or negligent a manner as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and while so driving causing injuries to a minor girl named Nidhi and one Sukh Raj and then moving the bus from the site of the accident so as to create the impression that it was being driven on the left hand side of the driver, whereas actually it was on the right hand side of the driver, when the accident took place. 3. Trial Court convicted the revision petitioner of all the three offences and let him off by imposing sentence of Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… imprisonment till the rising of the Court and payment of fine for each of the three offences. He filed appeal in the Court of Sessions Judge, which stands dismissed. 4. Two submissions have been made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. The first is that it is admitted by the star witness of the prosecution, namely PW-1 Manohar Lal, that the accident had taken place after two buses coming from the opposite direction had crossed the van by which the injured were travelling and it was the third bus, being driven by the revision petitioner, which rammed into the van, as a result of which the van turned turtle and its occupants sustained injuries. 5. For appreciation of the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel reference is required to be made to the allegation on which the revision petitioner was sent up for trial. According to the prosecution, a van occupied by injured persons was going from Una side towards Jhalera. When the van reached near cremation ground of Una town, three buses came from the opposite direction at a very fast speed. The revision petitioner, who was driving the last bus, tried to overtake the two buses going ahead of him and in that process his bus hit the van. 6. Learned counsel submits that when the two buses had already crossed the van, as admitted by PW-1 Manohar Lal, there could not have been any question of the revision petitioner trying to overtake the two buses going ahead of his bus. Submission though appears to be a convincing one, in the …3… first flush, in fact it is not. Site plan Ex. PW-9/B shows that the bus being driven by the revision petitioner was on the edge of the road on the wrong side when the accident took place. That means the revision petitioner was trying to overtake the buses going ahead of him, because otherwise there was no need for him to have taken the bus to his extreme right hand side. He, however, could not overtake those buses and before he could move his bus to his left hand side, it hit into the van that appeared from the opposite direction. 7. The second submission is that the revision petitioner did not run away with the bus and, therefore, the question of his conviction for offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code does not arise. This submission is also fallacious. Charge against the revision petitioner is that after the bus hit into the van, on the extreme right hand side of the revision petitioner, it was taken to the extreme left hand side with a view to creating an impression that the bus was not on the wrong side. It has come in evidence that the bus hit the van at point ‘A’, as shown in site plan Ex. PW-9/B, which was on the extreme left hand side of the driver of the van and the extreme right hand side of the revision petitioner, who was driving the offending bus. Revision petitioner moved the bus from point ‘A’ to his left hand side. 8. In view of the abovestated position, the revision petition is dismissed. July 1, 2008(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J