The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on prosecution witnesses' testimonies to prove the guilt of the accused under Sections 279, 337, 338 of IPC and the consideration of deterrence in sentencing for road accidents caused by rash and negligent driving.

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Instant Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the judgment dated 25.2.2009 passed by learned Sessions Judge(Forest) Shimla, H.P. in Criminal Appeal No. 9-S/10 of 08/2005, affirming the judgment dated 18.5.2005, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.II, Shimla in Criminal Case No.10/2 of 2000, whereby the petitioner (in short ‘accused’) was convicted under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC and sentenced as under:-

279 IPC To pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for one month.

337 IPC To pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for one month.

338 IPC S.I. for three months.

2. Briefly stated facts, as emerge from the pleadings are that on 16.5.1999, Jatinder Kumar along with his friends namely Kuber Chand(complainant), Gian Chand, Ramesh Chand, Kamal Thakur and others came to Mashobra to see Mashobra Seepur fair and were purchasing articles from the market. At about 7:00 PM, when they were proceeding from Mashobra towards Gabble Hotel side to board the bus, a truck bearing registration No.HP-51-0590 came from back side i.e. Mashobra side in a high speed and collided with Jatinder Kumar, as a result of which, he fell down on the road and suffered injuries. He was given first aid at Mashobra and thereafter taken to IGMC Shimla for treatment, wherein he was found to have suffered grievous as well as simple injuries. Complainant Kuber Chand got recorded his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C vide Ex.PW8/A, on the basis of which, FIR Ex.PW 8/B was registered against the accused. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, police conducted the investigation in the matter and came to the conclusion that the present petitioner-accused have committed the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 of IPC and accordingly, after completion of the investigation, presented the challan in the competent Court of law.

3. Learned trial Court after satisfying itself that a prima-facie case exists against the accused, framed charges under Sections 279, 337, 338 of IPC against the accused, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. In the present case, prosecution with a view to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt examined as many as 10 witnesses. The statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C was also recorded, wherein he stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. However, he did not lead any evidence in his defence.

5. Thereafter, learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence made available on record by the prosecution found accused guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 of IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused, as per the description given hereinabove.

6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment/order dated 18.5.2005/26.5.2005, passed by learned trial Court, present petitioner-accused filed an appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Sessions Judge(Forest) Shimla, which was also dismissed vide judgment dated 25.2.2009. Hence, the present criminal revision petition, praying therein for quashing and setting-aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, passed by learned trial Court and further upheld by learned Sessions Judge(Forest), Shimla.

7. Ms. Seema Guleria, learned counsel representing the petitioner, vehemently argued that the judgment passed by both the Courts below are not sustainable as the same are not based upon correct appreciation of the evidence available on record. Ms. Guleria forcibly contended that the judgment passed by both the courts below are wrong, illegal, unjust, contrary to true facts and circumstances of the case and as such, needs to be rectified in accordance with the law. She also contended that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the evide