High speed alone insufficient for rash/negligent driving proof; probable defence of evading sudden obstacle via justified deviation upheld acquittal on appeal.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 06.04.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.03.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, (I), Palampur, District Kangra (learned Trial Court) were set-aside and the respondent (accused before learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the charged offences. (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, 337, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was asserted that the informant Kuldeep Chand (PW3) was returning to his home on 25.12.2006 at about 8:00 A.M. Nirmala Devi (since deceased) was going to her field. A bus bearing registration No. HP37-3127 hit Nirmala Devi, who fell. The bus also turned turtle. Nirmala Devi sustained injuries on her left arm and other parts of her body. The passengers also sustained injuries in the accident. Nirmala Devi was taken to the hospital, but she was declared dead. Matter was reported to the police, and an entry No.4 (Ex.PW5/A) was recorded in the police station. SI Duni Chand (PW6) went to the spot for verification of the entry. The informant, Kuldeep Chand, made a statement (Ex.PW3/A), which was sent to the police station where F.I.R. (Ex.PW6/A) was registered. An application was filed for conducting the post-mortem examination of the deceased. A report (Ex. PM) was issued, stating that Nirmala Devi had died due to intra-abdominal haemorrhage leading to cardiogenic shock. Medical examinations of the injured were conducted, and the reports were issued. Duni Chand went to the spot and prepared a site plan (Ex. PW6/C). He seized the bus bearing registration No. HP37-3127, along with the documents vide memo (Ex. PW1/A). Rajender Kumar (PW4) conducted the mechanical examination of the bus and found that there was no mechanical defect in the vehicle which could have led to the accident. Statements of remaining witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial 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, 338 and 304- A of the IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined six witnesses to prove its case. Vijay Singh (PW1) is the witness to recovery. Reema Katoch (PW2) was the passenger in the bus. Kuldeep Chand (PW3) reported the matter to the police. Rajender Kumar (PW4) conducted the mechanical examination of the vehicle. HHC Swaroop Chand (PW5) proved the entry in the daily di