Dev Darshan Sud, J.@mdashThe petitioner challenges his conviction u/s 338 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Court convicted the petitioner for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for various terms. The appellate Court convicted the petitioner for imprisonment of two months and fine of Rs. 500/ - for offences u/s 338 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The brief facts necessary for the purpose of decision of this petition are that F.I.R. was lodged on the basis of statement made by PW8 Ram Dass and one Prem Dass who were going from Kanaid school towards their home in a taxi on 26.9.2001. At around 9.40 p.m., they found the petitioner accused driving the scooter in a very rash and negligent manner which struck against complainant PW2 Vijay Kumar who walking on the road. Deepak Kumar, who was the pillion rider of the scooter, also sustained injuries in this accident. He has not been examined as a witness. On the evidence of three witnesses, namely, PW8 Ram Dass, PW1 Prem Singh and injured PW2 Vijay Kumar, the learned trial Court convicted the petitioner despite the fact that one of the witnesses PW1 Prem Singh turned hostile and was cross-examined but despite that the accident was held to have been established.
3. While relying upon the statement of the witnesses more especially PW2 Vijay Kumar, who was injured, the learned trial Court concludes that the accident, in fact, had occurred, as pleaded.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner urges that there is perversity in the appreciation of evidence as neither PW8 Ram Dass, who was one of the eye witness nor PW1 Prem Singh have supported the case of the prosecution. In am not inclined to accept this submission more especially when the injured himself has given a graphic of description of how he was struck by the scooter which was being driven by the petitioner in a rash and negligent manner. In the circumstances even if the statement of other two witnesses is discarded, the factum of the accident stands established on the record of the case.
5. Reading the statement of PW8 Ram Dass, I cannot persuade myself to hold that he has not witnessed the accident or that it was not the petitioner accused who was driving the scooter. In these circumstances, the submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner cannot be accepted.
6. The injuries have been proved by PW5 Dr. Devinder Sharma, who says that the injured PW1, Prem Singh has sustained multiple abrasions on his hand and had also suffered fracture. There is, thus, no merit in this revision petition which is accordingly dismissed.
7. On the question of sentence, I find that since the incident has occurred in 2001 i.e. period of more than ten years has elapsed and that there has been no loss to life but the petitioner has been guilty of causing injuries on the complainant, it would be the fitness of things if the sentence of imprisonment is set aside and the petitioner herein is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 40,000/ - to the injured. This amount shall be deposited before the learned trial Court within a period of three months from today. On deposit of such money, the learned trial Court shall intimate the injured that the amount has been so deposited and the amount shall be disbursed to him. It is clarified that in case the amount is not deposited, as directed, the sentence of imprisonment shall be executed with due promptitude by the trial court. The revision petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
