Mehar Chand vs State of H.P.

Dev Darshan Sud, J.—The Petitioner challenges his conviction u/s 279 and 337 I.P.C. sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs. 1,000/- u/s 279 I.P.C. and simple imprisonment for three months u/s 337 I.P.C.

The case set up by the prosecution against the Petitioner is that F.I.R. No. 93 of 2001 was filed with Police Station, Kandaghat on 2.10.2001 on the statement of Mahinder Kumar complainant. He stated that he was the conductor of H.R.T.C. bus and on that date, he and P.W. 5 Jai Parkash were assigned duties on the bus bearing No. HP 14-5308 to Amritsar. At around 8.30 p.m. when the bus reached near Kiarighat, truck No. HP-11-3067 being driven by the Petitioner came from the opposite side at a high speed on the wrong side. This truck hit the bus of the complainant as a result of which he and his son suffered injuries. The driver fled away from the scene of the accident and the injured were rushed to the Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Shimla for further treatment. The prosecution examined P.W. 1 Chinta Mani who proved Ext. P.W. 1/B and Ext. P.W. 1/A to certify that there was no mechanical defect in either of the vehicle. P.W. 3 Sh. Satish Kumar, photographer proved on record Ext. P.W. 3/A to Ext. P.W. 3/G and Ext. P.W. 3/A-1 to Ext. P.W. 3/G-1 negatives of these photographs of the accident. P.W. 5 Jai Parkash driver of the bus substantiated the allegation made in the first information report. He also stated that his son Master kapil who sitting in the bus, was injured. P.W. 8 Master Kapil also supported this fact. His testimony was recorded after the court ascertained that he was capable of understanding the nature of his deposition. The learned trial Court on this testimony as also the photographs held that the truck was being driven on the wrong side and was therefore responsible for causing the accident. P.W. 9 Dr. M.P. Singh proved the injuries of driver P.W. 5 Jai Parkash. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned court found that the accident and criminal negligence of the Petitioner was established on the record. He, therefore, proceeded to sentence the Petitioner as noticed above.

Being dis-satisfied by the judgment, an appeal was preferred in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Solan. The evidence was re-appreciated by the learned court which re-affirmed the findings of the learned trial Court. In addition, the learned court holds that the Investigating Officer P.W. 11 Sh. Rattan Chand proved on record Ext. P.W. 11/B which is the site plan showing that the bus was being driven on its extreme left hand side while the truck was on the wrong side. According to this site plan only 2 to 4 feet of road was available on the side of the bus while the truck had driven straight into the bus leaving 15 feet of mettled and 9 feet of un-mettled road i.e. 24 feet on its side. This was additional corroborative proof that the truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urges that the courts below have not appreciated the evidence in its true perspective and more especially the report of P.W. 1 Chinta Mani, Mechanic, who according to the Petitioner proved that the truck was not being driven in a rash and negligent speed. He urges that the photographs cannot be used as the sole ground for convicting the Petitioner. Learned Counsel also refers to the testimony of P.W. 4 Sh. Dinesh Kumar one of the passengers of the bus who did not support the case of the prosecution.

I have gone through the judgment and the record of the case. I am not persuaded to hold that the courts below are wrong in assessing the evidence in the manner in which they have done. Adverting to P.W. 4 Sh. Dinesh Kumar, he states in his evidence that though the accident had occurred but he was sleeping at that particular point of time. Therefore, it cannot be said that his testimony in any way negates the evidence led by the Petitioner. On the evidence of P.W. 1 Chinta Mani, I find that he does not support the case of the Petitioner. Learned appellate Court has also examined the spot map Ext. P.W. 11/B which speaks for itself. The conclusion arrived at by the courts below are neither perverse nor un-supported by the evidence on record. In these circumstances, this revision petition is dismissed.

On the question of sentencing, what I find is that the accident occurred in the year 2002 and now this case has come up before this Court after a period of about nine years. On more than one occasion, the Court had observed that passage of time does not mitigate the criminality the quantum of sentence to be imposed upon a particular person. Rash and negligent driving by anyone cannot be tolerated. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be in the interest of justice in case the Petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation to injured P.W. 5 Jai Parkash. For this purpose, the Petitioner shall deposit the amount in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Kandaghat within a period of six weeks from today. On such deposit being made, this amount shall be paid to injured P.W. 5 Jai Parkash. It is directed that in case the amount deposited, the sentence of imprisonment is accordingly set aside. It is clarified that in case of non deposit of amount, the sentence of imprisonment shall revive. The amount so paid shall not be deducted from any other compensation which may have been awarded to the injured complainant. The petition is disposed of.