Rashness or negligence in driving not proved by accident alone, vague high speed claims, or absence of licence; injury inconsistency doubts prosecution; revisional jurisdiction limited to patent errors, not evidence reappreciation.

JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 04.07.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge (Forests), Shimla, (learned Appellate Court), vide which judgment of conviction dated 20.10.2009 and order of sentence dated 23.10.2009, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Theog, District Shimla, H.P. (learned Trial Court), were upheld. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as theywere 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 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M.V. Act). It was asserted that the victim Nirmla Devi (PW-1) was walking towards the left side of the road on National Highway 22 near Bhekalti on 09.12.2007 when a vehicle bearing registration No. HP-02A-0260 hit her from the rear. She sustained an injury on her left leg. Rajesh Kumar (PW-6) and Naresh Kumar (PW-2) took her to the Hospital. An intimation was given to the Police. An entry (Ext.PW4/A) was recorded in the daily diary. ASI Kamal Dutt (PW-4) went to the Hospital for verification. The informant/victim made a statement (PW-1/A), which was sent to the Police Station, where F.I.R. (Ext.PW-3/A) was registered. ASI Kamal Dutt (PW-4) went to the spot and prepared the site plan (Ext.PW4/B). He seized the vehicle alongwith its documents vide memo (Ext.PW-4/C). D. Ashok Chauhan (PW-8) conducted the medical examination of the injured and found grievous injuries on her person, which could have been caused in a motor vehicle accident. He issued MLC (Ext.PW-8/A). Constable Rajender Singh (PW-9) conducted mechanical examination of the vehicle. He found that there was no defect in the vehicle which could have led to the accident and that the indicator on the driver’s side of the vehicle was damaged. He issued his report (Ext.PW-9/A). The accused could not produce his driving licence. Hence, an offence punishable under of the M.V.Act was added. Statements of prosecution of witnesses were recorded as per their version. 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 181 of the M.V. Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined eleven witnesses to prove its case. Nirmla Devi (PW-1) is the victim/informant. Naresh Kumar (PW-2), Rajesh Kumar (PW-6), and Kuldeep Singh (PW-11) are the eyewitnesses. ASI Brijender Singh (PW-3) signed the F.I.R. ASI Kamal Dutt (PW-4) investigated the matter. Vidya Devi (PW-5) is the owner of the vehicle. Jai Ram (PW-7) produced the key and documents of the vehicle. Dr Ashok Chauhan (PW-8) conducted the medical examination of the injured. Constable Rajinder Singh (PW- 9) conducted the mechanical examination of the vehicle. Constable Surat Singh (PW-10) proved the entry in the diary.

5. The accused, in his statement