The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific evidence to prove negligent driving causing hurt under Section 279 IPC. Mere allegations of negligence are insufficient to establish criminal liability.

Sandeep Sharma, J.

The instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.PC, is directed against the judgment dated 12.3.2009, (in short ‘the impugned judgment’) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Kullu, District Kullu, HP, in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2008, affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 8.8.2008, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Manali, District Kullu, H.P. in Criminal Case No. 340-1/07/72-II/07, whereby the petitioner accused has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

“Section 279 IPC

To undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

Section 304-A of the IPC

To undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months under Section 304-A of the IPC.”

2. Briefly stated facts as emerge from the record are that complainant namely Ram Samuj, got his statement recorded under Section 154 of the Cr.PC (Ext.PW2/A), before the police, stating therein that on 21.6.2007, at about 4:00pm, he along with deceased Dalip Rana, Dhokhe Lal, Shiv Shankar and Shyam Lal was loading tipper bearing registration No. HP-58-1665. He further stated that deceased Dalip Rana was standing on back side of the tipper and the complainant requested the accused to slightly reverse the tipper, but cautioned him to let deceased Dalip Rana move away from there. It was also reported to the police that the labourers namely Dhokhe Lal, Shiv Shankar and Shyam Lal were standing by the side of the tipper with deceased Dalip Rana, when all of a sudden the accused reversed back the tipper, as a result of which vehicle hit deceased Dalip Rana on his neck. The complainant further reported that on his raising alarm, tipper was stopped by the accused. The complainant also reported to the police that the injured was brought to the Mission Hospital Manali where he was declared brought dead. The complainant also reported to the police that accident took place due to negligent driving of the petitioner accused. On the aforesaid statement having been made by the complainant under Section 154 of the Cr.PC., police registered a formal FIR against the petitioner and took into possession Tipper along with documents. After completion of investigation, accused was challaned by the police for commission of offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304 of the IPC before the competent Court of law.

3. Learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Manali, District Kullu, H.P., after satisfying itself that prima facie case exists against the accused put a notice of accusation under Sections 279 and 304-A, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Learned trial Court on the basis of evidence adduced on record by the prosecution, found the accused guilty of having committed offence under the aforesaid Sections and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as per description already given above.

4. The present petitioner-accused being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court, filed an appeal under Section 374 of Cr.PC before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Kullu, District Kullu, HP, who vide judgment dated 12.3.2009, dismissed the appeal. Hence, this criminal revision petition before this Court.

5. Mr. Anup Chitkara, Advocate, representing the petitioner vehemently argued that the impugned judgment passed by the court below is not sustainable in the eye of law as the same is not based upon the correct appreciation of material made available on record by the prosecution and as such, same deserves to be quashed and set-aside. Mr. Chitkara, while inviting attention of this Court to the impugned judgment passed by the Court below argued that bare perusal of the judgments suggest that b