Point of Law : It is well settled that specific evidence is required to be adduced on record by prosecution to prove rash and negligent driving, if any, on the part of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

1. By way of instant appeal filed under S. 378 CrPC, challenge has been laid to judgment of acquittal dated 1.12.2009 recorded by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, district Una, Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Case No. 89-II-2003 whereby learned court below held respondent-accused (hereinafter, 'accused'), not guilty of having committed offence punishable under Ss. 279 and 337 IPC.

2. In nutshell, case of prosecution is that on 26.2.2003, while the persons namely Gurpreet Singh, Pawan Kumar, Ranjeet Singh and Praveen Kumar were coming from Mehatpur towards Una in a Maruti car bearing registration No. DL-4CA-4575 being driven by Praveen Kumar, at 12.30 am, near Government College Una, a Tata Sumo bearing registration No. HP-20A-8400, being driven by accused Tarsem Chand, came in high speed and struck against the car being driven by Praveen Kumar, as a result of which occupants of car, suffered multiple injuries. After having received information police reached the spot and took into possession both the vehicles as detailed herein above, alongwith documents. Though all the occupants of the car were taken to hospital but unfortunately one occupant, Ranjeet Singh died whereas, others suffered simple and grievous injuries. After completion of investigation, police presented Challan in competent court of law for commission of offences under Ss. 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC.

3. Learned court below having found prima facie case against the accused, put to him notice of accusation under Ss. 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. Prosecution with a view to prove its case, examined as many as 13 witnesses, whereas, accused in his statement under recorded under S. 313 CrPC, claimed himself to be innocent but despite opportunity did not lead evidence in his defence.

5. Learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced on record by the Investigating Agency, held accused not guilty of having committed offence punishable under aforesaid provisions of law and as such, acquitted him vide impugned judgment of acquittal dated 1.12.2009. In the aforesaid background appellant has approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for conviction of the accused, after setting aside judgment of acquittal recorded by learned court below.

6. Though, Shri Gaurav Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, while making this court peruse evidence collected on record by Investigating Agency, made a serious attempt to persuade this Court to agree with his contention that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the evidence in right perspective, and as such, findings contrary to record have come to the fore but after having scanned entire evidence, this court has no hesitation to conclude that the prosecution miserably failed to prove, beyond reasonable doubt that on the date of alleged incident, Tata Sumo collided with Maruti car and at that time, vehicle was being driven by accused Tarsem Chand.

7. Though, in the case at hand, as has been taken note above, prosecution examined 13 witnesses but statements made by PW-11 Pawan Kumar, PW-12 Praveen Kumar and PW-2 Gurpreet Singh may be relevant to determine the correctness of findings recorded by learned court below. All the aforesaid witnesses as named herein above, were occupants of the car bearing registration No. DL-4CA-4575, which allegedly was hit on wrong side by the accused, while driving Tata Sumo bearing registration No. HP-20A-8400. If the statements of aforesaid witnesses are read in conjunction, juxtaposing each other, this court finds substantial force in the submission of Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate that there are material contradictions and inconsistencies with regard to timing and identity of the driver and as such, same were rightly rejected by learned court below, while rendering judgment of acquittal in favour of the accused.

8. PW-12 Praveen Kumar deposed that on 26.2.2003, while he alongwith Pawan