IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 4144 of 2013 Decided on: 09.12.2025 _________________________________________________________

Battan Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent _________________________________________________________

Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge

1 Whether approved for reporting?

_____________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Swati Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondent: Mr. Ankush Thakur, Deputy Advocates General.

Sushil Kukreja, Judge (Oral)

The present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner-accused (hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’) under Sections 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) against the judgment dated 01.07.2013, passed by the learned Additional Sessions- III, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No.17-K/08/10, whereby the appeal filed by the accused against the judgment of conviction dated 25.02.2008 and order of sentence dated 27.02.2008, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class-II, Kangra, District Kangra, H.P., in Criminal Case No.45-II/2005, were

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

upheld and the appeal filed by the accused was dismissed.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that on 29.11.2004, complainant Rakesh Kumar alongwith Mohar Singh was going on the scooter bearing registration No.HP-40- 3778 from Kangra to Sohara and when they reached at place Abdullapur, a Tata Sumo bearing registration No.HP-02-8811 came from opposite side, which was being driven by accused Battan Kumar in a rash and negligent manner, hit the same with the scooter being driven by the complainant. As a result of which, Mohar Singh received simple as well as grievous injuries and he was taken to the hospital. Thereafter , the matter was reported to the police, on the basis of which, the FIR in question was registered against the accused. After completion of the investigation, the police prepared the charge-sheet and presented the same in the learned Trial Court.

3. The learned trial Court, after having found the accused guilty, convicted him for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC, vide judgment of conviction dated 25.02.2008 and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay fine of Rs.500/- for commission of each of the offences punishable under Section 279, 337 & 338 of IPC, vide order of sentence dated 27.02.2008. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused preferred an appeal before the learned lower Appellate Court, which was dismissed, vide judgment dated 01.07.2013.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment dated 01.07.2013, the petitioner-accused preferred the instant revision petition.

5. I have heard learrned Senior Counsel for the petitioner- accused as well as learned Deputy Advocate General and also gone through the entire record carefully.

6. At the very outset, it may be pertinent to mention that learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner is satisfied with the judgment of conviction passed by the Courts below, but alternatively submitted that since the petitioner is the first offender and ithere is no previous conviction against him, therefore, he be released on probation. He further submitted that the petitioner is facing the proceedings in the present case since the year 2004 and now he is having good moral character and maintains respectable conduct in the society.

7. After going through the entire record, I do not find any perversity or infirmity in the findings given by learned Trial Court convicting the accused. Regarding the prayer of taking a lenient view and to consider release of the petitioner on probation, this Court has also called for the report from the Probation Officer and whil