Back
2018 Supreme(HP) 395
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.
State of Himachal Pradesh - Appellant
Versus
Rohtash Singh - Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 515 of 2008
Decided On : 24-05-2018
For the Appellant :Mr. Raju Ram Rahi, Deputy Advocate General.
For the Respondents:Mr. B.B. Vaid, Advocate.
The main legal principle established is that the duty of a driver to exercise caution and the first right of pedestrians on the road must be considered in determining rash and negligent driving.
Headnote:
Rash and Negligent Driving - Indian Penal Code - Sections 279, 337, 338
Fact of the Case:
The respondent was acquitted by the trial court for rash and negligent driving causing grievous hurt to the injured. The prosecution's case was based on the statement of the injured and medical evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court's decision was set aside as it failed to consider the evidence on record and gave undue weightage to the speed of the vehicle, ignoring overwhelming evidence proving the guilt of the respondent. The respondent was held guilty and convicted under Sections 279, 337, and 338 of the IPC.
Issues: The key issue was whether the respondent's driving constituted rash and negligent behavior, leading to the injuries sustained by the pedestrian.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that speed alone cannot be the decisive factor in determining rash and negligent driving. It highlighted the duty of a prudent driver to exercise caution, especially in the presence of pedestrians, and the first right of pedestrians to walk on the road.
Final Decision: The respondent was held guilty and convicted for the offense. The court also considered extending the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act to the respondent.
Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred by the State against acquittal of respondent-Rohtash Singh vide judgment, dated 31st March, 2008, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. VI, Shimla, H.P. in Criminal Case No. 165/2 of 2006 in case FIR No. 265 of 2005, dated 1st October, 2005, registered under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') in Police Station Sadar, District Shimla.
2. Prosecution case is that on 1st October, 2005, at about 11.00 a.m., respondent-Rohtash Singh had endangered human life and personal safety of complainant PW1 Hemanti Devi, while driving bus bearing registration No. HR371460 in rash and negligent manner, causing grievous hurt to the injured.
3. As per statement of PW1 Hemanti Devi, Ex. PW1/ A, recorded under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'CrPC'), on 1st October, 2005, at about 11.00 a.m., when she was walking on her left side of the road near State Bank at Longwood, Shimla, a bus, bearing registration No. HR371460, being driven in rash and negligent manner by respondent-Rohtash Singh, came there whereupon she stood sticking to the railing, but the said bus crossed squeezing her abdomen between the railing and the bus resulting into injuries to her abdomen and waist. Further, that she came to know that driver was Rohtash Singh, s/o Jagdish Singh, whose rash and negligent act had caused the accident.
4. After registration of the FIR, investigation was conducted and statements of witnesses were recorded. On finding prima facie complicity of respondent-Rohtash Singh in commission of offence, challan was presented in the Court.
5. Prosecution has examined eleven witnesses to prove its case. After recording statement under Section 313 Cr.PC, respondent had chosen not to lead any evidence in defence. On conclusion of trial, respondent has been acquitted by the trial Court. Hence, the instant appeal.
6. I have heard learned Deputy Advocate General as well as learned counsel for the respondent and have also gone through the record.
7. Though, besides injured PW1 Hemanti Devi, prosecution has examined PW2 Ishma and PW6 Roshan Singh as spot witnesses, but, PW6 Roshan Singh had completely resiled from his earlier statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC and categorically stated in Court that he had not witnessed the incident. In his cross-examination, nothing material against the respondent could be elicited from him.
8. PW2 Ishma has admitted his presence on the spot, but, immediately after the accident. Though, in examination-in-chief, he has deposed that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent act of respondent, but, in cross-examination, he has stated that he could not say that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent act of the respondent or for the reason that PW1 Hemanti Devi herself had come in front of the vehicle. He had not witnessed the accident, but, he has stated that person on the spot were saying that rear portion of the bus had hit PW1 Hemanti Devi.
9. PW1 Hemanti Devi, in her statement, has reiterated the contents of her statement Ex. PW1/ A and has also categorically identified the respondent as driver of the offending bus. She has also identified the bus in the photograph which had caused injuries to her. In cross-examination, she has specifically stated that she had seen the driver, but, not the conductor of the bus and the driver was the accused present in the Court.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that in her statement, PW1 Hemanti Devi has deposed that she was hit by front portion of the bus whereas the prosecution case is that she was squeezed between the bus and the railing, which could be possible only by the side of the bus and in case of a hit of bus from the front side, PW1 Hemanti Devi would have received injuries on her entire body.
11. Scrutiny of the statement of PW1 Hemanti Devi reflects that she has stated that she was squeez
