Acquittal under IPC Section 279 upheld where parked vehicle negligently on highway without indicators; mere 'high speed' claim insufficient for rashness proof absent specifics; limited interference in appeal against acquittal unless perverse.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.04.2012, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Una (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.07.2011, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, District H.P. (learned Trial Court) were set aside. (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 an offence punishable under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’). It was asserted that informant Bhisham Chander (PW4) had gone to drop his son at DAV School on 21.07.2009, in his vehicle bearing registration No. HP20B- 5246. He parked the car on the left side of the road, with one tyre on the kachha portion and another on the pucca portion. He and his son were sitting in the vehicle. An HRTC bus bearing registration No. HP 72-0173 hit the car at high speed. Ram Pal (accused) was driving the car. The accident occurred due to the negligence of the accused. The matter was reported to the police. SI Sham Lal (PW10) reached the spot. He recorded the statement of informant Bhisham Chander (Ex.PW4/A), and sent it to the Police Station, where FIR (Ex.PW8/A) was registered. Photographs of the spot (Ex.PW10/A and Ex.PW10/B) were taken. The site plan (Ex.PW10/C) was prepared. The bus and car were seized vide memos (Ex. PW.2/A and Ex.PW2/B). Documents of the car were seized vide memo (Ex.PW4/B). The driving license of the accused (Ex.PW10/D) was seized vide memo (Ex.PW1/A). HHC Saroop Lal (PW7) conducted the mechanical examination of the vehicles and found that there was no mechanical defect in the vehicles which could have led to the accident. He issued the reports (Ex.PW7/A and Ex. PW7/B). Statements of the prosecution 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 an offence punishable under Section 279 of the IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined ten witnesses to prove its case. Baldev Singh (PW1) proved the documents of the vehicle and the appointment order of the accused. Mohinder Kumar (PW2) is the witness to recovery. Vipan Kumar (PW3) is the eyewitness, but he did not support the prosecution’s case. Bhisham Chander (PW4) is the informant. Ravinder Singh (PW5) produced the documents of the vehicle. Pranav Sharma (PW6) is the witness to recovery. HHC Saroop Lal (PW7) conducted the mechanical examination of the vehicles. Inspector Rajinder (PW8) signed the FIR. Constable Gulshan Kumar (PW9) is the witness to the recovery of the vehicles. SI Sham Lal (PW10) conducted the investigation.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., denied the prosecution’s case in its entirety. He state