Negligent driving resulting in injuries constitutes a violation of IPC Sections 279, 337, and 338, warranting conviction and deterrent sentencing.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

1. The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 25.09.2014 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (learned Appellate Court) vide which, the judgment passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur (learned Trial Court) convicting and sentencing the petitioner (accused before learned Trial Court) was upheld. (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 revision are that the police presented a challan against the accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’). It was asserted that the informant, Dina Nath (PW1), and his son Sunil Dutt (PW7) were returning from Shimla in a bus bearing registration No. HP-10-0388, which was being driven by the accused. Sunil Dutt had sustained a fracture earlier in an accident, and he had gone to Shimla to get himself examined. When the bus reached Namhol at 12-12:15 pm, the accused drove it towards the other side of the road and hit a truck coming from the opposite direction. 5-6 persons sustained injuries in the accident. The injured were taken to the hospital. An intimation was given to the police regarding the accident. An entry (Ext. PW6/A) was recorded in the Police Station. ASI- Ram Nath (PW8), HC Prakash Chand, HHC Harbans Singh (PW5) and HHC Kamal Lal went to PHC Namhol for verification of the information. Ram Nath (PW8) recorded the statement of the informant Dina Nath (Ext. PW1/A), which was sent to the Police Station where FIR (Ext. PW8/A) was registered. ASI Ram Nath conducted the investigation. He prepared the site plan (Ext. PW10/B). He took the photographs of the spot (Ext. P1 and Ext. P2) whose negatives are Ext. P3 and Ext. P4. He filed an application for conducting the medical examination of the injured and obtained the MLCs of Sujata (Ext. PA), Vatani Devi (Ext. PB), Sunil Dutt (Ext. PD), Rikhi Ram (Ext. PE), and Prakash Chand (Ext. PF). He also collected X-rays of Sujata (Ext.PG, PG1 and PG2), Vatani Devi (Ext. PH and PH1), and Sunil (Ext. PJ, PJ1 to PJ4). ASI-Ram Nath seized the bus vide memo (Ext. PW4/B). Sher Singh (PW3) mechanically examined the bus and found that it had no mechanical fault in it. He issued the report (Ext. PW3/A). ASI Ram Nath recorded the statement of witnesses as per their version and arrested the accused. The challan was prepared and presented before the Court after the completion of the investigation.

3. Learned Trial Court put the notice of accusation to the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined eight witnesses to prove its case. Dina Nath (PW1), Vatani Devi (PW2) and Sunil Dutt (PW7) were travelling on the bus. Sher Singh (PW3) mechanic, conducted the mechanical examination of the bus. Rakesh Kumar (PW4) was driving the truck. HHC Harbans Singh (PW5) is the witness to the recovery of the truck. Constable Geeta Ram (PW6) proved the entry in the daily diary. ASI Ram Nath (PW8) conducted the investigation.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., admitted that he was driving the bus. He claimed that he was innocent. He did not lead any evidence in defence.

6. The Learned Trial Court held that the testimonies of the eyewitnesses corroborated each other in material particulars. The mechanic did not find any fault in the vehicle. It was proved by the medical evidence that the occupants had sustained simple and grievous injuries. The defence version that the accident occurred due to the mechanical fault in the vehicle was not believable. The spot map showed that the vehicle was being driven towards the wrong side of the road, which constituted negligence on the part of the accused. Hence, the