Skid marks and eyewitness high speed testimony prove rash negligent driving under IPC 279/337; revisional court cannot reappreciate evidence or disturb concurrent findings absent perversity.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 02.06.2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra (HP) (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment of conviction dated 11.08.2011 and order of sentence dated 12.08.2011, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra (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 revision are that the police presented a challan against the accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was asserted that Samangala Devi (PW2) and her sister-in- law Gayatri Devi (PW3) were going towards Rait Bazar on 20.12.2006. A Bus bearing registration No. HP68-0289, owned by Ravi Bus Service, hit Gayatri Devi (PW3) at about 4:10 pm. Gayatri Devi fell. The accused, Sanju, was driving the bus at the relevant time. The accident occurred due to the high speed of the bus and the negligence of the accused. The injured was taken to the hospital, intimation was given to the police, and an entry (Ext.PW7/C) was recorded in the Police Station. SI/SHO Mohinder Singh (PW11) and the other police officials went to the hospital to verify the correctness of the information. The informant, Samangala Devi, made a statement (Ext.PW1/A) which was sent to the Police Station, where FIR (Ext.PW7/A) was registered. SI/SHO Mohinder Singh (PW11) investigated the matter. He called Rajan Chauhan (PW6), who took the photographs (Ext.PW6/A to Ext.PW6/F) of the spot. Inspector Mohinder Singh (PW11) prepared the site plan (Ext.PW11/A). He seized the bus bearing registration No. HP 68- 0289 vide memo (Ext.PW5/A). HHC Inderjeet (PW10) mechanically examined the bus and found that there was no defect in it which could have led to the accident. He issued the report (Ext.PW10/A). Dr Tarun Sharma (PW1) examined the injured Gayatri Devi (PW3) and found that she had sustained multiple injuries, which could have been caused within ½ to 1 hour in a Motor Vehicle Accident. He issued the MLC (Ext.PW1/A). Gayatri Devi (PW3) was referred to Dr Rajendra Prasad Govt. Medical College and Hospital, Dharamshala, for further treatment. Treatment summary (Mark ‘X’) was obtained. Statements of 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, a notice of accusation was put to him for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses to prove its case. Dr Tarun Sharma (PW1) medically examined the injured Gayatri Devi. Samangala Devi (PW2) is the informant and an eyewitness.