HARDEV SHARMA Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment and sentence of the learned Sessions Judge, Solan, affirming the judgment and sentence passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan.

(2.) THE petitioner was charged for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations were that on 14.12.1997 statement of Ashok Kumar was recorded according to which, at about 5.45 P.M. when he was standing near Kasauli Chowk, Dharampur a HRTC bus came there, which stopped and in the meantime one Amarjeet son of Shri Nirmal Singh reached at the spot on a scooter which was going towards Kasauli Chowk. The moment Amarjeet Singh scooterist crossed the bus, a Tata Sumo bearing registration No. HR -26E -9638, which was being driven by the petitioner in a rash and negligent manner, came from the Dharampur side and hit the scooterist dragging him for about 40 feet. The scooterist fell down and sustained injuries. He was lifted and rushed to the hospital. The offending vehicle was taken into possession by the police and the matter was investigated. The learned trial Court considered the evidence of the prosecution which consisted of Sant Singh PW -1, who stated that the scooterist came from the side near Kasauli Chowk and Tata Sumo driven by the petitioner hit the scooterist Shri Amarjeet Singh who was injured and referred to PGI, Chandigarh. PW -2 Dr.Ashok Tagara has proved the Medico Legal Certificate Ex.PW -2/A and medical opinion Ex.PW -2/B. According to Ex.PW -2/A, injured Amarjeet Singh was unconscious and not oriented well. There were abrasions on the right side of his knee, his pulse was not running properly to right, there were multiple abrasion on dorsal of right hand etc. He was referred to PGI, Chandigarh for Neurosurgery. Ex.PW -2/B is the certificate issued by the Senior Resident in Neurosurgery where the injured remained admitted from 16.12.1997 to 30.1.1998 and was subjected to neurosurgical procedure to save his life. The injury has been described as dangerous to life. PW -3, Chinta Mani, photographer, proved photographs of the spot. PW -4 is Ashok Kumar who also corroborates the factum of the accident when he says that the vehicle No.HP -12 -1633 was hit by Tata Sumo being driven by the petitioner. He s tates that this was being driven at a very fast speed. He is acquainted with the injured. PW -6 Braham Dutt Sharma is the owner of the Tata Sumo vehicle and he states that the petitioner was its driver at the relevant point of time. Though PW -7 Mani Ram who was also an eye witness to the accident, resiled from his earlier statement, but there was nothing in his statement which exonerates the petitioner in any manner. The learned trial Court, on appraisal of the evidence, convicted the petitioner for offences under Section 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and fine of Rs. 1,000/ - under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code, simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 5,00/ - for offences under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code and simple imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 1,000/ - for offences under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code, in default of payments of fine he was to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. The learned appellate Court, affirmed these findings and instead of sentencing him for offences under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code separately, convicted him for offences under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 1,000/ -.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the evidence of PW -1 Sant Singh has not been properly appreciated because he could not state the reasons as to how the accident had taken place. He could not state the factum of the accident and that the admissions by PW -4 Ashok Kumar, PW -6 Braham Dutt and PW -7 Mani Ram have been misinterpreted. It has also been urged that the petitioner was not driving Tata Sumo vehicle at the relevant point of time. I cannot accept this submission. The statement of PW -6 Braham Dutt is clear. He is the co -owner of the offending Tata Sumo vehicle No.HR -26E -9638. He states in his evidence that on 13.12.1997 the vehicle was being driven by the petitioner. On 14.12.1997 he received a call from police station Dharampur that a Tata Sumo met with an accident whereupon the vehicle which was impounded by the police was got released from the Court. There is no effective cross -examination of this witness on this aspect of the case. On the evidence of other witnesses, I do not find that the Courts below have committed any error in appreciating these statements. In revisional jurisdiction, I cannot convert myself into an appellate Court to re -appreciate the entire evidence.