Appellate court upholds acquittal in rash driving case absent proof of negligence; interferes only if trial court's reasonable view perverse or ignores evidence, allowing doubt from possible mechanical defect.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28.10.2013, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.5, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. (learned Trial Court) vide which the accused (respondent before learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code (IPC). (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, 338 & 304-A of the IPC. It was asserted that Jagdish was travelling in a bus bearing registration No. HP-63-0196 on 30.06.2006 with his son Santosh. 35-40 passengers were present in the bus. The accused, Hem Ram,was driving the bus. He was talking to the passengers sitting in seat No. 1 and to other passengers standing behind him. He could not control the bus, and it fell into the gorge. The passengers shouted that the bus was going off the road. The accused tried to control the bus, but it fell into a gorge. The informant and occupants of the bus sustained injuries. Some people died on the spot. The injured were taken to the hospital. An intimation was given to the police. An entry (Ext.PW-20/A)was recorded in the Police Station. ASI Sohan Singh (PW-29), HHC Lekh Raj went to the spot. HC Yog Raj (PW-21), Constable Vijay Kumar and Constable Rajneesh were directed to visit the hospital. ASI Sohan Singh (PW-29) recorded the statement of informant Jagdish (PW-1) (Ext.PW-1/A) and sent it to the Police Station, where F.I.R. (Ext.PW-28/A) was recorded. ASI Sohan (PW-29) investigated the matter. He prepared the site plan (Ext.PW28/B). Constable Lokender Singh (PW-17) took the photographs (Ext.X1 to Ext.X8). The bus bearing registration No.HP-63-0196 was seized vide memo (Ext.PW14/D). The registration certificate and a certificate regarding driving license (Ext.PW-15/A) were seized vide memos (Ext. PW-15/B andExt.PW-20/B). Rajinder Singh (PW-16) mechanically examined the vehicle. He did not find any defect in it that would have led to the accident. The photographs of dead bodies (Ext.PW-19/A1 to PW-19/A4) were taken by HHC Govind Ram (PW-19). Dr HC Sekhon (PW-30) conducted the post-mortem examination of Bhaskar Nand Sharma and found that he had died due to ante mortem head injuries and trauma in the chest, leading to cardio-respiratory failure. He issued his report (Ext.PW-30/A). He also conducted post post-mortem of Tej Parkash and found that he had died due ante-mortem head injury. He issued his report (Ext.PW-30/B). He conducted the post-mortem of Chaman Lal and found that he had died due to loss of blood as a result of blunt trauma. He issued his report (Ext.PW-30/C). All the injuries noticed by him could have been caused in a motor vehicle accident. Dr Sangeeta Dhillon (PW-31) conducted the post-mortem examination of Laxmi Nand and found that he had died because of ante-mortem head injuries. She issued the report (Ext.PW-31/A). She also conducted the post-mortem examination of Kuldeep, and found that he had died due to ante-mortem head injuries and a fracture on the right femur. She issued the report (Ext.PW-31/B). She conducted post- mortem of Parkash Chand