Revisional jurisdiction limited to patent errors or perversity; no re-appreciation of evidence; overtaking on wrong side while ignoring oncoming traffic constitutes rash negligence justifying conviction under rash driving provisions.

The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 04.11.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, Camp at Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) vide which judgment of conviction dated 28.10.2013 and order of sentence dated 16.11.2013, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P.(learned Trial Court) were 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 (IPC) and Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M.V. Act). It was asserted that informant Jagdish Chand (PW-2) was driving a bus bearing registration No. HP68-2299 on 14.07.2010 from Garli to Dharamshala. A jeep bearing registration No. HP- 20B-4881 tried to overtake the bus at high speed at Sukka Baag. The Jeep hit the motorcycle coming from the opposite side. The driver revealed his name as Naresh Kumar. The accident occurred due to the negligence of the accused. An intimation of the accident was given to the police, and an entry (Ex.PW5/A) was recorded in the Police Post Ranital . ASI Subhash Chand (PW-5) went to the spot to verify the correctness of the information. He recorded the statement of Jagdish Chand (Ext.PW-2/A) and sent it to the Police Station, where F.I.R (Ext.PW-5/B) was registered. ASI Subhash Chand investigated the matter. He prepared the site plan (Ext.PW-5/D), seized the jeep vide memo (Ext.PW-5/E) and the motorcycle vide memo (Ext.PW-5/F). Anil Kumar took the photographs (Ex.P1 to Ex.P-5). Dharmpal (PW-1) conducted the mechanical examination of the Jeep and motorcycle and found that there was no defect in the Jeep which could have led to the accident. He issued his report (Ext.PW-1/A). An application (Ext.PW5/L) was filed for conducting the medical examination of the injured, and the MLCs of Ajay Kumar (Ex.PA) and Ankur Rana (Ext. PB) were obtained. ASI Subhash Chand (PW-5) recorded the statements of prosecution witnesses 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 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 Section 279, 337 & 338 of the IPC and Section 184 of the M.V. Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined six witnesses to prove its case. Dharam Pal (DW-1) conducted the mechanical examination of the vehicles. Jagdish Chand (PW-