The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of contributory negligence in criminal cases and the requirement for consistent, convincing, and reliable evidence to establish criminal liability.

Sandeep Sharma, J.

The present revision petition filed under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla, in Cr.Appeal No.58-8/10 of 2004/03, dated 2.1.2008, affirming the order of conviction passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.2, dated 17.12.2002 in case No.241/2 of 2001.

2. Facts necessary for the adjudication of the case at hand are that on 16th August, 2001, in the forenoon, police received telephonic information in Police Post, Suni, that a person, who had suffered injuries by falling from a jeep and was brought in unconscious state to the hospital for treatment, has expired. Police, on the receipt of the aforesaid information, entered daily diary report No.8 in the Police Post and immediately thereafter Head Constable Tek Ram, the then Investigating Officer, Police Post, Suni, alongwith staff went to the hospital and recorded the statement of Vidhan Lal Ex.PW-1/A under Section 154 Cr.P.C., wherein he stated that he is an agriculturist and resident of village Dewal (Thali), Post Office, Suni. He stated that on 16.08.2001, he alongwith his brother Mast Ram, wife Smt.Naina Devi and children was returning from the house of his in-laws from village Shali to Suni but in Bagipul, one Sh.Ansuia Ram alias Chet Singh met him and at around 8.45 A.M., a Pick-up Van/Utility/Jeep (hereinafter referred to as `Pick-up’) bearing registration number HP-51-4381 appeared from Mandri side. Since the driver of the aforesaid vehicle known to Shri Chet Singh i.e. deceased, he approached the driver of the Utility and asked him to give them lift. Then all of them including complainant and deceased boarded the Pick-up in which already a few persons were sitting/traveling. He stated that since there was not much space in the Pick-up, he, Chet Singh, Mast Ram and Ghanshyam stood in the body of the Pick-up by catching hold of the iron angles affixed in the body. He categorically stated that since the bus which actually plies on that route had not come, they had taken lift in the Pickup. Accused Bhupinder Sharma was driving the vehicle on high speed and when it reached Dadyog check post, the barrier was closed. However, the light motor vehicles could cross the barrier from below the iron pole/bar affixed there, since barrier was half open. He stated that the head of Chet Singh was outside the body of the Utility and when the Utility was crossing the barrier, neither the accused applied the brakes nor he slowed down the vehicle and he tried to cross the barrier underneath the iron pole at a very high speed. Resultantly, the head of Chet Singh struck against the pole of the barrier and he fell down from the Utility on the road. He sustained grievous injury on his head and became unconscious. However, in the same vehicle he was brought to Suni Hospital for treatment where, after examining him, doctor declared him dead. He stated that mishap occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the accused.

3. On the aforesaid statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. of Shri Vidhan Lal, information was sent to Police Station, Dhali, for registration of FIR bearing No.186/2002, Ex.PW-6/A. Police, after getting postmortem conducted of the dead body of Chet Singh, obtained the report, after taking into possession the vehicle got it mechanically examined and lateron released the same on sapurdari as per orders of the Court. Photographs of the site of occurrence were clicked and statements of the witnesses also recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

4. After completion of necessary investigation, police presented the challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (2), Shimla on September, 29, 2001 and the accused was summoned by the learned Magistrate. Learned trial Court, after satisfying itself, found accused liable to be charged for offences under Sections 279, 304A of the India