PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner challenges his conviction under Ss. 279, 337, 338 and 304 -A of the Indian Penal Code, and under Sec. 192 of the Motor Vehicle Act, for which he was sentenced as follows:

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 16.2.1998 telephone call was received by the police that an accident had occurred at Kheel Ka More, where one Maruti Van bearing registration No. CHI -8867 had overturned and rolled down from the upper road to the lower road and one of the occupants of the Van had died on the spot, the other two had sustained injuries and had already been shifted to hospital. The police started investigation. Post mortem of the deceased was performed and photographs of the accident site Ex. P -1 to Ex. P -8 were taken on the spot showing accident. The prosecution examined sixteen witnesses and on the evidence of the occupants of the vehicle PW -1 Sh. Ramesh Lal and PW -7 Sh. Darshan Singh, mechanic PW -2 Sh. Joginder Singh Mehata, who prepared report Ex. PW -2/A, stating that the Maruti Van was totally smashed, the evidence of doctors PW -3 Dr. J.P. Kaushik and PW -4 Dr. Uday Chauhan, convicted the Petitioner. The Court also took note of the fact that the accused in his statement under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had stated that a truck came from the opposite direction and had struck against his vehicle, as a result of which it rolled down and one of the occupant Sh. Ran Singh died on the spot. This defence version was not accepted by the Court for the reason that the other occupants PW -1 Sh. Ramesh Lal and PW -7 Sh. Darshan Singh had stated nothing about the van being struck by a truck. In these circumstances, according to the learned Court, the only conclusion was that the accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving of the Petitioner herein. No evidence contrary to the prosecution evidence has been brought on record to show that the Van suffered from any mechanical defect. I can not accept the contention on behalf of the Petitioner that the evidence on record is not trustworthy as both the courts below have thoroughly analysed the evidence on record.

(3.) Coming to the sentence, though in cases under Sec. 304 -A of the Indian Penal Court, the Supreme Court has held that such offences have to be dealt with sternly because of rampant rash and negligent driving turning roads into veritable death traps, yet considering the facts and circumstances of the case that the accident occurred in the year, 1998 and this revision has now been considered by me after a period of twelve years, it would be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case that the sentence under Sec. 279 of the Indian Penal Code be reduced to three months simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/ -, three months simple imprisonment under Sec. 337 of the Indian Penal Code with fine of Rs. 500/ -, three months simple imprisonment under Sec. 338 of the Indian Penal Code with fine of Rs. 1,000/ -, six months simple imprisonment under Sec. 304 -A of the Indian Penal Code with fine of Rs. 10,000/ -and Rs. 5,000/ - fine under Sec. 192 of the Motor Vehicle Act. All the sentences to run concurrently. In case of default of payment of fine, Petitioner shall further undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days for each offence. A direction is issued to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan to ensure that the sentences be executed forthwith. Bail bonds furnished by the Petitioner are cancelled. Let a copy of this judgment be communicated to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan.