The prosecution must establish negligence or rash driving beyond reasonable doubt; lack of corroborative evidence from independent witnesses is crucial for acquittal.

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal under Section 378(1) of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 12.07.2016 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate (North-West), Rohini Courts, Delhi in connection with FIR No. 136/2010 PS Mangol Puri, Delhi for offence punishable under Sections 279/337/338 of the IPC.

2. The prosecution case in short is that on 13.03.2010 at about 12.30 AM, the respondent/accused was driving a vehicle (truck) bearing registration No. HR-38E-0194 on a public way rashly and negligently. The respondent/accused struck against one car bearing registration No. DL-1YB-7131 and caused simple and grievous injury to the passengers, namely, Antima Gupta and Shenam Jain. It is alleged that since the respondent/accused was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently so as to endanger the human life or to be likely to cause injury to other persons, FIR for offences punishable under Sections 279/337/338 IPC was registered against him. After investigation, charge-sheet for offences punishable under Section 279/337/338 IPC was filed.

3. Respondent/accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. The prosecution has examined four witnesses to prove the charges against the respondent/accused. Ms. Antima Gupta, eye-witness was examined as PW-1. She deposed that when she and her colleague Shenam were going back to their respective houses after finishing their work in the car of their employer, while crossing the West Enclave traffic light, a truck came and hit against their car. According to her, the collusion was so serious that the front portion of the truck embarked upon the bonnet of their car. She suffered injury on her head. She came out with the help of one passerby, in whose car she took her friend Shenam Jain to Jaipur Golden Hospital. She identified the accused as the person who was driving the said truck. She stated that respondent/accused was apprehended by the public persons. During cross-examination, she has admitted that she almost lost her consciousness for about 4-5 minutes and was not able to understand as to what has happened. The driver of the car, namely, Sunil Kumar, was examined as PW-3. He stated that the truck was being driven at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner. He identified the accused as the person who was driving the truck.

5. It is thus seen that there are two eye-witnesses i.e. PW-1 & PW-3. PW-2 Vinod Kumar Sharma was the owner of the truck. PW-4 is HC-Vijay Pal, who recorded the DD No. 3B on 13.03.2010 while he was posted in the concerned police station.

6. Section 279 of the IPC requires only two essentials viz. (a) driving of vehicle and (b) such driving must be so rash or negligent so as to endanger the human life or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person. For Section 279 to apply, the rashness or negligence must be criminal rashness or negligence. Both ingredients must be satisfied. Certain aggravated degree of rash and negligence is contemplated here. Burden lies on the prosecution to prove on record the material to establish the negligence or rash driving.

7. In the instant case, if the FIR and evidence is seen, except the statement made by PW-1 and PW-3 that respondent/accused was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, there is no other evidence. There is no material on record so as to prove the injury sustained by the injured. No examination of any doctor has been conducted. The place in question where the accident had occurred, was a busy public road however, no independent witness has been examined. It is not the case that no independent witness was available. The order dated 12.07.2016 of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate indicates that several opportunities were given to the State