Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(HP) 259

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
State of H.P. - Appellant
Versus
Lekh Raj - Respondent.
Cr. Appeal No. 312 of 2010
Decided On : 26-02-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General.
For the Respondent:Ms. Salochana Kaundal, Advocate.

The court ruled that mere assertions of high speed do not establish negligence without specific evidence supporting such claims in accidents, sustaining the principle of a presumption of innocence.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 279 and 337 - Motor Vehicles Act - Section 187 - Criminal Appeal against acquittal - The accused was acquitted of charges relating to rash and negligent driving resulting in an accident, as the prosecution failed to prove recklessness. The accident involved a bus and truck, with the truck allegedly moving on the wrong side. The learned Trial Court highlighted insufficient evidence regarding the speed and negligence of the accused, noting credible eyewitness accounts and assessing the relevant conditions of the accident scene. The Court reiterated that the mere assertion of 'high speed' does not suffice to establish negligence. (Paras 12, 20, 21, 22, 24)

Facts of the case:
The incident occurred on 07.04.2005, involving a bus and a truck, resulting in injury to the bus driver but no passenger injuries. The Trial Court acquitted the accused, stating the evidence did not unequivocally establish the accused's negligence.

Findings of Court:
The Trial Court’s finding of insufficient evidence was upheld, concluding credible evidence supported the acquittal.

Issues: The primary questions involved assessing the standards of negligence and evaluating the evidence presented.

Ratio Decidendi: The appeal was dismissed as the Trial Court’s conclusions were reasonable, emphasizing that affirming a judgment of acquittal is justified unless the findings are perverse.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. overview of the appeal and trial background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. details of witness testimonies and findings. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. arguments presented by both parties. (Para 7 , 9 , 10)
4. considerations in appeal against acquittal. (Para 11 , 12)
5. testimonies of key witnesses regarding speed. (Para 15 , 16 , 19)
6. legal standards for establishing negligence. (Para 20 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
7. final conclusion of the appeal. (Para 26 , 27 , 28)

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla , J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29.04.2010 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan, vide which the respondent (accused before learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (IPC) and Section 187 of MOTOR VEHICLES ACT (in short ‘MV Act’). (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police presented a challan against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC. It was asserted that Puran Chand (PW6) was driving the bus bearing registration no. HP-25-0793 on 07.04.2005, which was going from Kalka to Kafnu. The bus reached Galog near Nagli Bridge at about 7:00 am. A truck bearing registration No.HR-37A-1426 came at a high speed from the opposite side and hit the bus on the wrong side. 15 to 20 passengers were present on the bus; however, none sustained injuries. The driver sustained injuries and the bus was damaged towards the driver's side. The truck driver stopped the truck on the roadside and ran away from the spot. An intimation was given to the police. An entry No.20 (Ext. PW7/A) was registered in the police station. HC-Ram Rattan (PW11) was sent to the spot for verification. He recorded the statement of Puran Chand (PW6/A), which was sent to the police station for the registration of the FIR. FIR (Ext. PW8/A) was registered in the police station. ASI-Ram Rattan conducted the investigation. He prepared the site plan (Ext. PW11/A). He seized the truck bearing registration No. HR-37A-1426 along with documents vide memo (Ext. PW9/A). The bus bearing registration No. HP-25-0793 was seized vide memo Ext. PW1/B. Karam Chand (PW2) conducted the mechanical examination of the truck and the bus and found that there was no mechanical defect in them, which could have led to the accident. He issued the reports (Ext. PW2/A and PW2/B). The photographs of the spot (Ext. P1 to P7) and negatives (Ext. P8 to P12) were taken. The duty rosters of the driver and conductor were taken into possession. The statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version and after the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the Court.

3. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, a notice of accusation was put to him for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 & 337 of IPC and Section 187 of the MV Act. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses to prove its case. Paras Ram (PW1) did not support the prosecution case. Karam Chand (PW2) conducted the mechanical examination of the vehicles. Gurbachan Singh (PW3) proved that the bus bearing registration No.HP-25-0793 was going from Kalka to Kafnu. Dr. Sandeep (PW4) conducted the radiological examination and found that there was no fracture. Dr Mukta (PW5) conducted the medical examination of Puran Chand and found that he had sustained injuries, which could have been caused by a motor vehicle accident. Puran Chand (PW6) was driving the bus and sustained injuries. Rajesh Kumar (PW7) proved the entry in the daily diary. Babita Rana (PW8) signed the FIR. HHC Ramesh Chand (PW9) is the witness to the recovery. Shiv Prasad (PW10) is the owner of the truck. A