Revisional jurisdiction limited; cannot reappreciate evidence without perversity. Overtaking motorcycle on curve amid oncoming traffic is rash negligence under IPC Sections 279/337; probation inapplicable; deterrent sentence upheld.

JUDGMENT :

RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

1. The present revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 12.10.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) in Criminal Appeal No. 33/10 of 2015 vide which the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 18.05.2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.2, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. (learned Trial Court) in Criminal Case No. 3/2 of 2014/12 were upheld. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that the police presented a challan before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”). It was asserted that the informant Subhash Chander Chandel (PW-1) was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-23B-0279 on 09.08.2012. Pyare Lal (PW-2) was sitting as a pillion rider. They reached Awari at about 8.45 A.M., when a private bus bearing registration No. HP-69-2252 attempted to overtake the motorcycle at a high speed. However, a vehicle came from the opposite side, and the bus driver turned the bus to avoid the accident and hit the motorcycle. The motorcyclists fell and sustained injuries. The accident occurred due to the high speed and negligence of the bus driver. The injured were taken to the hospital, and intimation was given to the police. An entry (Ex.PW11/A) was recorded in the police station, and H.C. Bodh Raj (PW-13) was sent to the hospital for verification. He filed an application (Ex.PW10/A) for medical examination of the injured. Dr Deepak (PW-10) examined Pyare Lal and found that he had sustained simple injuries. He issued MLC (Ex.PW10/B). He also examined Subhash Chander and found that he had sustained multiple injuries. He issued MLC (Ex.PW10/E). These injuries could have been caused in a motor vehicle accident. H.C. Bodh Raj recorded the statement (Ex.PW1/A) of Subhash Chander and sent it to the police station, where FIR (Ex.PW12/A) was registered. H.C. Bodh Raj investigated the matter. He visited the spot and prepared a site plan (Ex.PW13/A). He took the photographs (Ex. 13/B-1 to Ex.PW13/B-6) with the help of the official camera. He seized the bus and motorcycle along with documents vide memos (Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW1/B). The owner of the bus, Mahender Singh (PW-7), issued a certificate (Ex.PW7/A) stating that the accused was driving the bus at the time of the accident. Sukhdev (PW-5) examined the bus and found that there was no mechanical defect in it that could have led to the accident. He issued the report (Ex.PW5/A). Dev Raj (PW-9) examined the motorcycle and found that there was no mechanical defect in it that could have led to the accident. However, damage to head light cover, mud guard and rear-view mirror was caused in the accident. He issued the report (Ex.PW9/A). The statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after the completion of the investigation challan was prepared and presented before