The court reaffirmed that driving under the influence leading to accident constitutes negligence, with the burden on the accused to explain circumstances of the incident.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 21.06.2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge (Forests), Shimla, (learned Appellate Court), vide which judgment of conviction dated 17.04.2009 and order of sentence dated 18.04.2009, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.2,Shimla, 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 petition are that the police presented a challan against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M.V. Act). It was asserted that the injured, Rajesh Rekta (PW-7), Yog Raj (PW-2), Surinder Kumar and the petitioner, Om Parkash, consumed liquor on 31.12.2002 with their friends. The informant Rajesh Rekta (PW-7), Yog Raj and Surinder Kumar boarded the vehicle bearing registration No. HP25-0507, which was being driven by the petitioner, Om Parkash. The vehicle met with an accident on the way to Sanan and fell into a Nala. The occupants of the vehicle sustained injuries. The accident occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner. An intimation was given to the police regarding the accident. An entry (Ext.PW-5/A) was recorded in the Police Station. HC Dula Ram (PW-10) was directed to verify the correctness of the information. He went to IGMC, Shimla and recorded the statement of Rajesh Rekta (PW-7) (Ext.PW-7/A), which was sent to the Police Station, where F.I.R. (Ext.PW-10/A) was registered. HC Dula Ram (PW-10) investigated the matter. He went to the spot and prepared a site plan (Ext.PW-10/C).He seized the vehicle bearing registration No. HP25-0507 vide memo(Ext.PW-1/A). Tara Singh (PW-11) took photographs(Ext.PW-11/A to Ext.PW-11/C) whose negatives are Ext.PW-11/D to Ext.PW-11/F.HC Gian Chand (PW-8) mechanically examined the vehicle and issued his report (Ext.PW-8/A). The documents of the vehicle were seized vide memo (Ext.PW-7/B).An application (Ext.PW-10/D) was made for conducting the medical examination of the victim. Dr Krishan Anand (PW-3) conducted the medical examination of Yog Raj (PW-2) and found that he had sustained simple injuries, which could have been caused within 72 hours of examination. He issued the report (Ext.PW-3/A). Dr Krishan Anand examined the accused and found that he had sustained simple and grievous injuries, which could have been caused within 72 hours of examination. He issued MLC (Ext.PW-3/B). He also examined Surinder Kumar and found that he had sustained simple and grievous injuries, which could have been caused in a motor vehicle accident. He issued his report (Ext.PW-3/D).Statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after completion of the investigation, a 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 of the IPC and Section 185 of the M.V. Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined twelve witnesses to prove its case. Gian Chand(PW-1) and Kuldeep Thakur (PW-12)are the eyewitnesses. Yog Raj (PW-2), Rajesh Rekta (PW-7) were the occupants of the vehicle. Dr Krishan Anand (PW-3) conducted the medical examination of the injured. Maghu Ram (PW-4) is the witness to the recovery of the vehicle. Constable Sandeep Kumar(PW-5) proved the entry in the daily diary. Constable Raj Kumar (PW-6) was working as MC with whom the case property was deposited. HC Gian Chand (PW-8) conducted the mechanical examination of the vehicle. HC Kuldeep Singh (PW-9) was working as an MHC in Police Station Dhalli, who sent the case property for examination. HC D