Acquittal upheld in rash driving appeal where site plan/photographs show victim's vehicle in road middle violating keep-left rule as proximate cause; vague 'high speed' and negligence opinions insufficient proof.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24.03.2012, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kangra, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Trial Court), vide which the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the charges framed against him after giving him the benefit of doubt. (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 (in short ‘IPC’). It was asserted that the informant Surinder Kumar (PW1), Vijeta Chaudhary (PW2) and Saroj Kumari (PW3) were travelling in a Maruti car bearing registration No. HP 37A-2813 from Rajol to Jamanabaad on 10.02.2007. A Maruti car bearing registration No. HP47-8888 came from the opposite side and hit the car bearing registration No. HP37A-2813 at Kathuma. The informant and other occupants sustained injuries. They were taken to the hospital. Haminder (accused) was driving the car bearing registration No. HP47-8888, and the accident occurred due to his negligence. The matter was reported to the police. An entry No. 12 was recorded in the Police Station. HC Pawan Kumar (PW9) went to the spot for verification of the information. He recorded the statement of the informant (Ext.PW1/A), which was sent to the police station where FIR (Ext.PW7/G) was registered. HC Ramesh Kumar (PW7) investigated the matter. He went to the spot and prepared the site plan (Ext.PW7/A). He seized the Maruti car bearing registration No. HP37A-2812, along with the documents vide memo (Ext.PW1/B) and the Maruti car bearing registration No. HP47-8888 vide memo (Ext.PW7/B). Jagdish Chand (PW10) took the photographs (Ext.PW10/A to Ext.PW10/D) whose negatives are Ext.PW10/E to Ext.PW10/H. The documents of the Maruti car bearing registration No. HP- 47-8888 were seized vide memo (Ext.PW7/C). Rajinder Kumar (PW5) mechanically examined the vehicles and found that there was no mechanical defect in them that could have led to the accident. He issued the reports (Ext.PW5/A and Ext.PW5/B). Dr Aradhana Sharma (PW6) conducted the medical examination of Surinder Kumar (PW1) and found that he had sustained simple injuries which could have been caused in a motor vehicle accident within six hours of examination. She issued the MLC (Ext.PW7/A). Statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after 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 Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined eleven witnesses to prove its case. Surinder Kumar (PW-1) is the informant. Vijeta Chaudhary (PW-2) and Saroj Kumari (PW-3) were the occupants of the vehicle. HC Pawan Kumar (PW-4) recorded the informant’s statement. HC Rajender Kumar (PW-5) mechanically e