The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove criminal rashness and negligence, the sole responsibility of the accused for the accident, and the consideration of various factors beyond just the speed of the vehicle to establish the offense under the relevant sections of the IPC.

Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J.

1. Judgment dated 16.3.2007 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Solan, in Cr. Appeal No. 4-S/1 of 2006 is under challenge in this petition. It is seen that learned lower appellate Court has affirmed judgment dated 27.7.2006 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Arki, District Solan in Cr. Case No. 29/2 of 2003, whereby the accused has been convicted under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 279 IPC, three months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- as fine under Section 337 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. year and to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as fine under Section 304-A IPC.

2. In a nut shell, the case of the prosecution against the accused is that on 25.10.2002 at Kararaghat-Kashlog road in District Solan, he was driving jeep No. HP-07-4427 carrying the injured witnesses PW-1 Ram Dass, PW-4 Kalawati and one Jeet Ram as well as other persons, eight in all, in a rash and negligent manner and thereby the vehicle met with an accident at Gaggal as he failed to control the same. The vehicle rolled down 250 meters below the road. While Sh. Jeet Ram has succumbed to injuries received in the accident, the remaining persons travelling in the illfated jeep received injuries, simple in nature on their person. The police of PS Darlaghat was informed by deceased Jeet Ram around 9:30 AM about this accident. The information so given was reduced into writing vide docket No. 6 Ext. PA. The police swung into action. Consequently, the statement of injured Kalawati (PW- 4) vide Ext. PW-4/A was recorded on the same day. On the basis of Ext. PW-4/A, FIR Ext. PW-5/A was registered in the Police Station qua this accident. The investigation was conducted by SI/SHO Chain Ram (PW-8).

3. On the completion of investigation, report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was filed against the accused in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Arki, District Solan. Learned Magistrate, on consideration of the report and the documents annexed therewith and on finding a prima-facie case for the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC made out against the accused had put the notice of accusation to him accordingly. The accused, however, pleaded not guilty to the notice and claimed trial.

4. The prosecution in support of its case has examined 8 witnesses in all. The material prosecution witnesses are PW-1 Ram Dass and PW-4 Kalawati, who were the occupants of the ill-fated jeep. The remaining witnesses, including PW-8 SHO Chain Ram are, however, formal. The motor mechanic who has allegedly inspected the ill-fated jeep though would have been a material witness to this case, however, he died well before the prosecution evidence was recorded in the trial Court. Anyhow, on the appreciation of the evidence produced by the prosecution and examining the defence of the accused as emerges from the trend of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses as well as the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, learned trial Court has arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. He, as such, was convicted for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC.

5. Learned lower appellate Court has affirmed the findings of conviction and sentence recorded against the accused by learned trial Court and dismissed the appeal.

6. The legality and validity of the findings of conviction and sentence passed by both Courts below has been questioned on the grounds inter alia that highly contradictory evidence produced by the prosecution has been relied upon to record the findings of conviction and sentence against the accused. The statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was not re