The judgment established the requirement for the prosecution to prove criminal rashness and negligence beyond reasonable doubt in cases of motor vehicle accidents.

JUDGMENT :

Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J.

State of Himachal Pradesh aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.5.2007 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial magistrate, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur in Police challan No. 194-I-98/195-II-98 has preferred the present appeal. The complaint is that learned trial Court has misread, misconstrued and misappreciated the evidence available on record and erroneously acquitted the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused’) of the accusation put to him under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian penal Code.

2. Accident of HRTC Bus No. HP-20-0676 and a private bus bearing registration No. HP-22-5785 had taken place at Chabuttra on Sujanpur-Hamirpur road on 15.8.1998 at 5:30 P.M. While the HRTC bus was enroute Palampur to Haridwar and on its way of Hamirpur from Sujanpur, the private bus was on its way from Hamirpur to Sujanpur. The record reveals that another private bus “Sheetla Bus Service” also plies from Palampur to Hamirpur simultaneously behind Palampur-Haridwar HRTC bus. The evidence as has come on record by way of the testimony of PW11 Om Parkash the driver of HRTC bus and PW5/1 Gorakh Ram reveal that on the fateful day also both i.e. HRTC bus and Sheetla bus service were being plied to its destination after each other. Both buses were in competition. According to PW11 it is the driver of Sheetla Bus Service who daily competes with HRTC bus. The case has been registered at the instance of PW9 Bhumi Chand on his statement Ext.PW6/A. It was reported by this witness that the accident occurred at such a stage when the offending bus HP-22-5785 being driven in a rash and negligent manner arrived at the place of accident and struck against the HRTC bus because on account of high speed its driver lost control over the same. The investigation has been conducted by Shri Bakshi Ram PW6, the then SI (SHO) Police Station, Sujanpur. During the course of investigation spot map Ext.PW6/C was prepared and the place of accident with both buses standing there also got photographed vide photographs Ext.P1 to Ext.P7. In the accident the passengers of both buses received minor injuries on their persons.

3. On the completion of investigation the police has filed the challan against the accused. Learned trial Magistrate on finding a prima-facie case having been made out against the accused had put notice of accusation to the accused that it is on account of rash and negligent driving attributed to him the accident had taken place and that he has committed an offence punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. He, however, pleaded not guilty and has claimed trial. The prosecution has examined 12 witnesses in all. The material prosecution witnesses are PW2 Chandu Lal, who was on duty as conductor with HRTC bus at the time of accident, PW5/1 Shri Gorakh Ram and PW9 Shri Bhumi Chand who were travelling in HRTC bus. The remaining prosecution witnesses are formal.

4. The accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence being wrong and stated that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving attributed to the driver of HRTC bus. No evidence, however, has been produced by him in his defence.

5. Learned trial Judge on appreciation of the evidence available on record and analyzing the rival submissions has arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently, the accused has been acquitted of the accusation as was put to him.

6. The legality and validity of the impugned judgment has been questioned on the grounds, inter-alia, that cogent and reliable evidence as has come on record by way of the testimony of PW2 Chandu Lal, PW5/1 Gorakh Ram, PW9 Bhumi Chand and PW11 Om Parkash has been ignored and brushed aside erroneously and to the contrary learned trial Court has based its findings on hypothesis con