Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 227

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
State of H.P. - Appellant.
Versus
Baldev Singh - Respondent.
Cr. Appeal No.141 of 2011
Decided on : 06-05-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.
For the Respondent:Mr. Surinder Kumar Saklani, Advocate.

The prosecution must prove negligence or rashness beyond reasonable doubt; mere high speed does not suffice to establish liability.

Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279 and 304-A - Appeal against acquittal - The accused was acquitted of charges of rash and negligent driving leading to death - The prosecution failed to establish the accused's negligence or rashness, as the evidence did not support the claims made - The learned Trial Court's judgment was upheld as reasonable. (Paras 6, 12, 26)

(B) Acquittal - Scope of appellate review - An appellate court can interfere with an acquittal only if the judgment is perverse or based on misreading of evidence - The presumption of innocence remains strong in favor of the accused. (Paras 12, 41)

Facts of the case:
The appeal arises from the acquittal of the accused, who was alleged to have caused the death of Ram Das by negligently driving a bus that hit the deceased's bicycle. The prosecution's evidence was deemed insufficient to prove negligence. (Paras 2, 6)

Findings of Court:
The learned Trial Court found that the prosecution did not establish the rashness or negligence of the accused, leading to the acquittal. The appellate court upheld this finding, stating that the evidence did not support the claims of negligence. (Paras 6, 26)

Issues: The main issues included whether the prosecution proved the accused's rashness or negligence and the appropriateness of the learned Trial Court's acquittal. (Paras 6, 12)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that mere high speed does not equate to negligence or rashness without further evidence, and the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof. (Paras 20, 22)

Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 01.09.2010, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. (I) Amb, District Una (H.P) (learned Trial Court) vide which the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 & 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (“in short IPC”). (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 before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 & 304-A of the IPC. It was asserted that the informant, Raj Kumar (PW1), was running a vegetable shop at the Bus Stand Amb. He was present at the bus stand on 26.11.2006. Ram Das (since deceased) was riding a bicycle at 06:00 pm. A bus bearing registration No. HP-19A- 3396 hit the bicycle at a high speed. The bicycle fell on the road. The rear tyre of the bus crushed Ram Das. Ram Das succumbed to his injuries. The accident occurred due to the negligence of the bus driver. Information was given to the police about the accident. The police recorded an entry No.18 (Ex-PW9/A) in the Daily Diary. ASI Pawan Kumar (PW11), HC Mohar Singh and HHC Pritam Chand visited the spot to verify the correctness of the information. ASI Pawan Kumar (PW11) recorded the statement of the informant (Ex-PW1/A) and sent it to the police station for registration of FIR. An FIR (Ex-PW11/B) was registered at the police station. Ashwani Kumar (PW2), took the photographs (Ex-PW2/A to Ex-PW2/C). ASI Pawan Kumar conducted the inquest on the dead body and prepared the report (Ex-PW-11/D). He prepared the site plan (Ex-PW11/E) and seized the bus bearing registration No. HP-19A-3396 vide seizure memo (Ex-PW4/A). He also seized the bicycle vide seizure memo (Ex-PW3/A). He filed an application (Ex-PW11/F) for conducting the postmortem examination of the deceased. Dr. Piara Singh conducted the postmortem examination and issued the report (Ex-PA) stating that the cause of death was a crushed injury to the head and chest bony cage. It was found that the accused, Baldev Singh, was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. The accused produced the documents of the vehicle, which were seized vide seizure memo (Ex-PW6/A). The bus and the bicycle were mechanically examined, and no defect was found in them which could have led to the accident. Report (Ex-PB) was issued. The statements of remaining witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court.

3. Learned Trial Court put the notice of accusation to the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 & 304-A of the IPC, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses to prove its case. Raj Kumar (PW1) is the informant. Ashwani Kumar (PW2) is the photographer who took the photographs of the spot. Rakesh Kumar (PW3) and Raman Kumar (PW4) are witnesses to the seizure memo. Jai Singh (PW5) is the Power of Attorney of the owner of the bus. Balwant Singh (PW6) is the witness to the recovery of the documents. Shiv Kumar (PW7) did not support the prosecution's case. Suresh Kumar (PW8) is an eyewitness. HHC Sadashiv (PW9) proved the entry in the daily dairy. Asha Rani (PW10) is the owner of the bus. ASI Pawan Kumar (PW11)conducted the investigation.

5. The accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 of CrPC admitted that he was driving the bus on 26.11.2006 at 06:00 pm. He stated that the bus was not moving at the time of the accident. A false report was lodged against him. The witnesses were related to the deceased and the complainant. No defence was adduced.

6. Learned Trial Court held that t