The judgment emphasizes the principle that in case of a judgment of acquittal, it shall not ordinarily be interfered with unless it is found to be perverse and shakes the conscious of the Court.

JUDGMENT

Ajay Mohan Goel, J. (Oral)By way of this appeal the State has challenged the judgment passed by the Court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra, Distt. Kangra in Criminal Case No. 38-I/2003/39-II/2003 dated 29.11.2008 vide which learned trial court has acquitted the present respondent for commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 of I.P.C and Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, was that on 17.7.2002 a telephonic information was received by the police of Police Station, Dehra from Medical Officer, Sub Divisional Hospital, Dehra to the effect that one lady had been brought in an injured condition in the hospital. Thereafter Head Constable Madan Lal along with Constable Ashok Kumar went to the hospital where statement of complainant Sulekha Devi was recorded under section 154 of Cr.P.C., 1973 It was stated by complainant that on the fateful day at around 6:45 a.m. she had gone to Dharamshala in order to purchase certain medicines for her husband on scooter No. CHO-1C-854. As per complainant, she had parked her scooter at a place known as Dehrian from where she had boarded the bus for Dharamshala and returned back to Dehrian at around 1:00 p.m. Thereafter she went to Jawalaji for attending a meeting on her scooter, as she also happened to be BDC Member of Gram Panchayat, Thakurdwara. Further as per complainant while on her way back from Jawalaji to Kariyara at a place known as Kundli Har at around 2:30 p.m. a bus bearing registration No. HP-36-372 came from the opposite side in a high speed which hit her scooter, as a result of which she fell down and sustained injuries on her body. The aforesaid bus was being driven by accused Ishwar Dass and the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent as well as dangerous driving on the part of the accused. After the accident she (complainant) was shifted to Sub Divisional Hospital, Dehra for the purpose of treatment. On the basis of statement so recorded under section 154 of Cr.P.C., 1973 FIR Ext. PW4/A was registered against accused under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC as well as Section 184 of Motor Vehicles Act. After the registration of FIR, investigation was carried out by Investigating Officer. The complainant was medically examined by Dr. Anil Mahajan who vide MLC Ext. PA gave opinion to the effect that the injuries which were received by complainant were simple in nature. During the course of investigation, the bus involved in the accident was impounded, site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared, scooter of the complainant was also taken into possession and other documents of the bus as well as that of scooter was also taken into possession. Both the vehicles were got mechanically examined from Arun Kumar Sethi and was found to be in order. Statement of witnesses were recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C., 1973 as per their versions.

3. After the completion of investigation, challan was filed in the Court and as a prima facie case was found against the accused, accordingly notice of accusation was put to him under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC and Section 184 of Motor Vehicles Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. On the basis of material produced on record by the prosecution, learned trial court acquitted the accused of the charged offences by holding that there was no evidence to demonstrate that accused was driving the bus in issue in a rash and negligent manner which caused injuries to the complainant. While arriving at the said conclusion, it was held by learned trial court that merely because complainant had suffered injuries, on this ground alone, it could not be said that accident was deliberate or due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the accused. Learned trial court held that there was nothing on record to infer that accused was driving the bus in question rashly and negligently. It was held by learned trial court that there were material contradictions