The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was driving rashly and negligently, and the absence of direct evidence and presumption of rashness or negligence without proper evidence.

JUDGMENT

Sandeep Sharma, J. - Instant criminal appeal filed under Section 378 of the Cr.PC., is directed against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 18.3.2015, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra, District Kangra, H.P., in Cr. Case No. 101-II/2009, whereby the respondent-accused came to be acquitted of the notice of accusation under Sections 279 and 304-A of the IPC.

2. Briefly stated facts, as emerge from the record are that complainant Pritam Chand (PW1), in his statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.PC., alleged that on 20.2.2008, at about 11:30 a.m. when he was standing on the side of the road in front of the shop of Rasila Ram, at a place called Badai, a bus bearing No. HR-55C-8018, came in high speed and hit Salig Ram, as a consequence of which, he fell down and sustained injuries. Complainant specifically alleged that incident happened due to rash and negligent driving of the accused. Injured was referred to RPGMC, Tanda, but unfortunately he expired on his way to the hospital. On the basis of aforesaid statement, made by the complainant, FIR bearing No. 23 of 2008 dated 20.2.2008 (Ext.PW9/A) came to be registered against the accused. Police after completion of investigation presented challan in the competent court of law, who on being satisfied that prima-facie case exists against the respondent-accused, put notice of accusation to him under Sections 279 and 304-A, IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution with a view to prove its case examined as many as nine witnesses, whereas accused in his statement recorded under Section 311 Cr.PC denied the case of the prosecution in toto, however, he did not lead any evidence in his defence.

3. Learned trial Court on the basis of evidence adduced on record by the prosecution held the accused not guilty of having committed offences punishable under aforesaid provisions of law and accordingly, acquitted him vide judgment dated 18.3.2015. In the aforesaid background, being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the aforesaid judgment of acquittal recorded by the court below, appellant-State has approached this Court by way of instant proceedings, seeking therein conviction of the respondentaccused after setting aside the judgment of acquittal recorded by the court below.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court is not persuaded to agree with the contention of Mr. Amit Dhumal, learned Deputy Advocate General that judgment of acquittal recorded by the court below is not based upon proper appreciation of evidence and law, rather this Court is fully convinced and satisfied that judgment passed by the court below is based upon proper appreciation of evidence and court below has dealt with each and every aspect of the matter meticulously and there is no scope of interference. Similarly, this Court is not inclined to agree with the contention of learned Deputy Advocate General that prosecution successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt that on the date of alleged incident, ill fated vehicle was being driven in high speed and in rash and negligent manner by the accused, rather evidence led on record by the proseuciton suggests that Victim Salig Ram after having seen the bus coming towards his side got panicked and jumped into the ravine/gorge, as a consequence of which, he sustained injuries.

5. In the case at hand both the material prosecution witnesses PW1 and PW2 have turned hostile. PW1 Pritam Singh, who is also a complainant, deposed that on the relevant day, deceased Salig Ram upon seeing a bus panicked and jumped beneath the road. Though, this witness was declared hostile, but in his cross-examination at length by the learned APP, prosecution was unable to extract something contrary to what he stated in his examination-in-chief. This witness specifically denied that bus had hit the deceased. He also denied his statement having given to the police as recorded. He also d