IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revison No. 115 of 2003. Date of Decision: March 16, 2010. ____________________________________________ Rup Chand ….Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ….Respondent. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? yes For the petitioner : Ms. Vidushi Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. ________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral) The petitioner has filed this revision against the judgment of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Karsog, Distt. Mandi, convicting the petitioner for offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 & 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Court sentenced the petitioner for simple imprisonment for three months each, under Sections 279, 337 & 338 IPC and a fine of Rs. 300/- each for these offences and six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- for offence under Section 304-A of IPC. In appeal, the sentences have been reduced to one month simple imprisonment. 2.The brief facts necessary for the decision of this revision are that on 1.5.1998, at about 2.15 a.m., Manmohan Singh (PW-2), resident of Alsindi informed the police on telephone that truck 1Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? yes bearing No. HP-07-3785 had rolled down the road and 8/9 people had been injured. On this, Head Constable Nihal Singh, Constable Harbans Singh, Shankar Ram alongwith photographer proceeded to the spot. The allegations are that complainant Balak Ram had loaded peas in the truck at about 12.00 night at Chamunallah. He alongwith others, namely, Khushi Ram, Hem Raj, Hari Ram, Prem Singh, Bhagat Ram Dumnu, Muni Ram and others were sitting in the vehicle. When the truck started from Chamunallah, the headlights of the truck started malfunctioning and after sometime stopped functioning. Upon this, the petitioner started driving the truck with the aid of a torch light. When he reached Alsindi, he bought three pairs of flash light cells and continued driving the truck with the aid of torch light despite the fact that the complainant and other people protested. The petitioner did not heed to their advice and after driving for about half a kilometer, he lost control of the vehicle, which rolled down the road resulting in injuries to the occupants of the vehicle and death of Muni Ram. 3.The learned trial Court on the evidence of the prosecution, which consisted of PW-1 Balak Ram, who was declared hostile because his testimony to the extent that the truck was being driven with the aid of a torch light, PW-11 Kameshwar, PW-12 Buteshwar and PW-14 Bal Mukand, held that the case of the prosecution was corroborated in all material aspects and it was established on the record that the truck was not having functional headlights. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge after considering entirety of the evidence had dismissed the appeal. 4.I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State. 5.I do not find anything on the record, which contradicts the case as put up by the prosecution. Rather, I find that the learned Sessions Judge has been lenient in sentencing the petitioner to the term of simple imprisonment for one month only. In Dalbir Singh versus State of Haryana, (2000) 5 SCC 82, the Supreme Court held: “1. When automobiles have become death traps any leniency shown to drivers who are found guilty of rash driving would be at the risk of further escalation of road accidents. All those who are manning the steering of automobiles, particularly professional drivers, must be kept under constant reminders of their duty to adopt atmost care and also of the consequences befalling them in cases of dereliction. One of the most effective ways of keeping such drivers under mental vigil is to maintain a deterrent element in the sentencing sphere. Any latitude shown to them in that sphere would tempt them to make driving frivolous and a frolic.” (pp.84-85) 6.This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the petitioner shall stand cancelled. The petitioner shall surrender before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Karsog, Distt. Mandi, who will ensure the execution of these sentences forthwith. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. March 16,2010 (HL)