Appeal against acquittal for rash driving upheld if trial court's view reasonable; sudden pedestrian road crossing and vague high speed testimony insufficient to prove negligence.

JUDGMENT :

RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 03.10.2012 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, District Una, H.P. (learned Trial Court) vide which the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the offences with which he was charged (sic). (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 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 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’). It was asserted that informant Joginder Singh (PW1) was running a shop of kiryana at Dangoli main road. He was standing outside his shop with Kehar Singh (PW2) at about 04.40 PM. A car bearing registration No. HP53A-1329 came from the Bangana at high speed and hit Ajmer Singh (PW3), walking towards the left side of the road. Ajmer Singh fell, and the car crushed his left leg. The informant and Kehar Singh (PW2) pushed the car and removed Ajmer Singh (PW3). The driver identified himself as Dhruv Kumar. Ajmer Singh was taken to the hospital in the same vehicle. The accident occurred due to the negligence of the accused. An intimation was given to the police, and an entry (Ex.PW10/A) was recorded in the Daily Diary. HC Madan Mohan (PW11) was directed to visit the hospital to verify the correctness of the information. HC Madan Mohan (PW11) and Constable Rampal went to the hospital where Joginder Singh (PW1) made a statement (Ex.PW1/A), which was sent to the Police Station, where FIR (Ex.PW9/A) was registered. An application (Ex.PW11/A) was filed for conducting the medical examination of Ajmer Singh. Dr. Sunil Sharma (PW8) conducted the medical examination of Ajmer Singh and found that he had suffered grievous injuries which could have been caused within six hours of examination in a road accident. He issued the MLC (Ex. PW8/A). HC Madan Mohan (PW11) visited the spot and prepared a site plan (Ex.PW11/B). He seized the vehicle bearing registration No. HP53A-1329 along with documents vide memo (Ex.PW2/A). Sarup Lal (PW5) conducted the mechanical examination of the vehicle and found that there was no mechanical defect in the vehicle which could have led to the accident. 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 learned Trial Court.

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

4. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses to prove its case. Joginder Singh (PW1), Kehar Singh (PW2) and Mangal Singh (PW4) are the eyewitnesses. Ajmer Singh (PW3) is the injured. Sarup Lal (PW5) conducted the mechanical examination of the vehicle. Sanjeev Kumar (PW6) took the X-rays of the injured. Vinod Kumar (PW7) took the photographs. Dr. Sunil Sharma (PW8) conducted the medical examination of the injured. ASI Karam Chand (PW9) signed the FIR. HHC Paramjit Singh (PW10) proved the entry in the daily dai