ORDER
Kamlesh Sharma, J.
1. This criminal revision, at the instance of the accused Gurdas Singh, is against the judgment dated 30-7-1988 passed by the Sessions Judge, Una, whereby the judgment dated 27-10-1987 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, District Una, was affirmed. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, had convicted Gurdas Singh under Sections 279, 304-A, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for each of the offence. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. The brief facts of the case are that in the year 1985 Gurdas Singh was working as Driver in Himachal Road Transport Corporation and was posted in its Depot at Una. He was deployed on bus No. HPG-701 which was handed over to him on 13-2-1985 after its defective brakes were repaired. Gurdas Singh took the bus for trial, before putting it to normal use, towards the Bus stand. Sh. Dharampal who was working as Helper in the workshop at Una also accompanied him. He found that the brakes were still defective and when applied, the bus used to veer towards the right. Therefore, he reversed the bus and proceeded towards the workshop. When he reached near fertilizer shop with the name and style of IFFCO, situated on the road leading to HRTC workshop from the bus stand, he went to the extreme right and rammed into a scooter which was coming from the opposite direction. One Devinder Pal was the driver of the scooter and one Suresh Kumar was riding its pillion. As a result of the accident, Devinder Pal suffered various grievous injuries and succumbed to them after reaching the hospital. Sureshkumar also received a number of grievous as well as simple injuries. His statement was recorded under Section 154, Cr. P.C. while he was admitted in the hospital. On the basis of his statement FIR was lodged. On mechanical test, the scooter was found in perfect order whereas the brakes of the bus were found defective. Thereafter challan was put up and the case was tried. Gurdas Singh in his statement under Section 313, Cr. P.C. took the defence, inter alia, that he applied brakes to save one cyclist and did not notice the scooter coming from the opposite direction. The Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted him holding him guilty under Sections 279, 304-A, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. His findings were affirmed by the Sessions Judge in appeal filed by Gurdas Singh.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Sh. Harish Behal, learned counsel for Gurdas Singh, has urged that the prosecution has failed to prove that his client was rash and negligent in driving the bus. According to him, to take the bus for trial, in order to check whether its brakes were rapaired satisfactorily or not, shows that Gurdas Singh was not negligent but was diligent. The moment Gurdas Singh came to know that the brakes were still defective, he had turned the bus towards the workshop to get it repaired. Mr. Behal further submits that there was no alternative for Gurdas Singh but to apply brakes to save one cyclist which resulted into the complained of accident for which he cannot be held responsible. The speed of the bus, at the time of the accident, is proved to be 15 to 20 Kilometres which cannot be held as high speed. To decide these points, it is necessary to scan the evidence on the record.
4. Suresh Kumar, pillion rider (P.W. 1) has stated that on the day of accident he along with Devinder Pal deceased, was going to Nangal from Jawalaji on scooter No. PNS 4300 and when they reached LIC office in Una Town, a bus came from the opposite direction and abruptly deviated towards the right side and hit the scooter which was being driven on its extreme left. I need not refer to his statement that what happened afterwards as that is not in dispute. According to him, the scooter was towards the extreme left on Kutcha portion and at a distance of 1 1/2' from the metalled portion of the road. The defence taken by Gurdas Singh in his statement under Section 313, Cr. P.C. was not put to this witness.
5. Another eye witness is Dharam Pal (P.W. 3) who was accompanying Gurdas Singh in the bus. He has not supported the prosecution and has deposed that Gurdas Singh applied the brakes to save one cyclist as a result of which the bus swerved and struck against the scooter. He was cross-examined by the A.P.P. wherein he admitted that it was his fault and that of the driver to take the bus for trial to a crowded bazar. He has further admitted that after the trial, Gurdas Singh and he had verified that the bus used to swerve towards right when brakers were applied. According to him, the scooter was on left side and its driver after seeing the bus had taken it on to Kutcha portion of the road to save himself. He has also admitted his statement portion B to B made under Section 161, Cr. P.C. wherein he had stated that when the bus reached near the bridge, Gurdas Singh suggested to him that they should test the brakes after plying the vehicle at high speed to which he had replied that the vehicle should be driven slowly and if there is any defect, it would be repaired in the workshop. In cross-examination, on behalf of Sh. Gurdas Singh, he has admitted that he had not stated to the Police that Gurdas Singh had applied the brakes to save the scooter rider. He has also accepted the suggestion that the speed of the bus was 15 to 20 Kilometres at the time of the accident.
6. Another important witness is Sarup Lal, Mechanic (P.W. 5), who had put the bus to mechanical test after its accident and had given his report Ex. P.W. 5/B. In his mechanical report, he has noticed that the bus was in fourth gear at the time of the accident.
7. From the evidence on record, it is proved beyond any doubt that Gurdas Singh took the bus to test its brakes towards the bus-stand on the road which passes through the crowded bazar. It is further proved from the statement of Dharam Pal (P.W. 3) that after plying the bus for some distance, Gurdas Singh had come to know that the bus used to veer towards right when brakes were applied. Still he drove the bus in fourth gear at a speed of 15 to 20 kilometres. High or low speed is a relative term depending upon other factors. If a vehicle with defective brakes, as in the present case, is driven at a speed of 15 to 20 Kilometres in a crowded bazar, it is nothing but driving the vehicle rashly at high speed. It cannot be believed that Gurdas Singh could not see the scooter coming from the opposite side when there is no evidence on the record that there was any obstruction in between. Knowing that by applying the brakes, the bus used to swerve towards the right, Gurdas Singh was required to exercise reasonable care by driving the bus at snail's speed to enable him to bring it to a halt whenever required without applying brakes.
8. So far the defence that brakes were applied to save a cyclist is concerned, that is apparently an afterthought. Had it been correct, it would have been put to Suresh Kumar (P.W. 1) and would have been stated by Dharam Pal (P.W. 3) to the Police in his statement under Section 161, Cr. P.C. In view of these findings, I have no hesitation to endorse the view taken by the courts below holding Gurdas Singh guilty of driving the vehicle rashly and negligently which endangered human life and caused grievous injuries to deceased Davinder Pal and Suresh Kumar. The submissions made by Sh. Harish Behal are without any substance. The judgments cited by Sh. Behal, Ajit Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1975 Crl. LJ 77 and P. Rajappan v. State of Kerala, 1986 Cri LJ 511, are distinguishable on the facts of the present case.
9. In the result, the revision petition fails and it is dismissed. The bail bonds of the petitioner are cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the trial court and undergo the sentence imposed upon him.