High speed testimony without quantification insufficient for rash/negligent driving; no driving licence not per se negligence; acquittal upheld as trial view reasonable, no appellate interference absent perversity.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24.1.2013, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Dehra, District Kangra, 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, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, he was convicted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for seven days. (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 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of the IPC and Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act). It was asserted that Sushma Devi (since deceased) and Kuldeep Chand (PW1) were returning from Tanda in a bus on 3.3.2009. They got down near the office of ONGC. Sushma Devi purchased onions and was sitting on the roadside. A motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-36A-3245 came from Jawalaji at high speed and hit Sushma. The motorcycle and the rider, Ravinder Kumar (accused), fell. Sushma and the accused sustained injuries in the accident. The accident occurred due to the negligence of the accused. The injured were taken to the hospital. An intimation was given to the police, and an entry in the daily diary was recorded. ASI Bhupinder Singh (PW5) went to the hospital for verification. He filed an application (Ex.PA) for the medical examination of the injured. MLC (Ex.PB) was issued showing that Sushma Devi had sustained multiple injuries. X-ray and CT scan were advised. Sushma Devi was referred to RPGMC, Tanda, for further treatment. Ravinder Kumar was also medically examined, and an MLC (Ex.PC) was issued stating that he had sustained multiple injuries. Statement of Sushma (Ex.PW5/A) was recorded, which was sent to the Police Station, where FIR (Ex.PW5/B) was registered. ASI Bhupinder Singh (PW5) investigated the matter. He went to the spot and prepared the site plan (Ex.PW5/D). He took photographs (Ex.PF to Ex.PH). He seized the motorcycle vide seizure memo (Ex.PW1/A). Sushma Devi succumbed to her injuries in the hospital. ASI Bhupinder Singh (PW5) filed an application (Ex.PE) for the postmortem of Sushma. He also conducted the inquest on the dead body. Postmortem Report (Ex.PD) was issued, in which it was mentioned that Sushma died because of the combined effect of asphyxia and hemorrhagic shock attributable to multiple ante- mortem injuries. The accused produced the documents of the motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-36A-3245, which were seized vide memo (Ex.PW5/F). HC Chaman Lal (PW4) conducted the mechanical examination of the motorcycle and found that there was no mechanical defect in the vehicle which could have led to the accident. The statements of remaining witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after the completion of the investigation, a challan was prepared and presented