Negligence in driving leading to injury constitutes a violation under Sections 279 and 337 IPC, affirming strict liability for road traffic offenses.

JUDGMENT : 

RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

1. The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 16.9.2014, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.4.2014, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 3, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, HP (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 the informant, Batan Singh (PW1), was working as Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) in the HP State Electricity Board (HPSEB), Bilaspur Circle. He was driving the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-23B-1459 on 18.5.2007. He reached the Ghumarwin Bazar, where Jagdish Singh (PW2) and Daulat Ram met him. They boarded the vehicle, and all of them proceeded towards Dadhol. A truck bearing registration No. HP-22-5259 came from the opposite side at Ghumarwin Bridge at about 6.15 PM. The truck was being driven at a high speed and towards the wrong side of the road. The informant stopped his car on the roadside to enable the truck to pass; however, the truck hit the car. The informant and Jagdish Singh sustained injuries. Chiranji Lal (accused) was driving the truck at the time of the accident. The accident occurred due to his negligence. The injured were taken to the hospital, and intimation was given to the police. An entry (Ex.PW9/A) in the daily diary was recorded. HC Amar Nath (PW9) and Constable Daulat Ram were sent for verification. Amar Nath (PW9) recorded the informant’s statement (Ex.PW1/A) and sent it to the Police Station, where FIR (Ex.PW4/A) was registered. He filed an application for medical examination of the injured. Dr. N.K. Bhardwaj (PW5) examined Batan Singh and found that he had sustained multiple injuries, which could have been caused by a blunt weapon. He issued the MLC (Ex.PW5/A). Dr. N.K. Bhardwaj (PW5) also examined Jagdish and found that he had sustained multiple injuries, which could have been caused within six hours. He issued an MLC (Ex.PW5/B). Amar Nath (PW9) went to the spot where he prepared the site plan (Ex.PW9/B) and took photographs (Ex.P1 to Ex.P4), whose negatives are Ex.P5 to Ex.P8. He seized the truck bearing registration No. HP-22-5259 and the car bearing registration No. HP-23-1459, along with documents vide memos (Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW1/C). HHC Dev Raj (PW3) mechanically examined the vehicle and found that there was no defect in the vehicle which could have led to the accident. He issued a report (Ex.PW3/A). The car was handed over to Batan Singh vide memo (Ex.PW1/B), and the truck was handed over to the owner, Bimla Devi. 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 nine witnesses to prove its case. Batan Singh (PW1) is the informant. Jagdish Singh (PW2) is an eyewitness. HHC Dev Raj (PW3) mechanically examined the vehicle. Pritam Singh (PW4) signed the FIR. Dr. N.K. Bhardwaj (PW5) medically examined the injured. Bimla Devi (PW6) owned the truck. Suresh Kumar (PW7) witnessed the recovery. Puran Chand (PW8) prepared the challan. Amar Nath (PW9) investigated the matter.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., denied the prosecution’s c