No appellate interference with reasonable acquittal in rash driving case where victim suddenly crossed road, 'high speed' unquantified, witnesses hostile/contradictory, and negligence unproved beyond doubt.

JUDGMENT :

RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 06.02.2014, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P., vide which the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the 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 before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was asserted that the informant Raj Kumari (PW1) and Rekha Devi (PW4) were walking on the roadside of Khajjian road on 24.01.2005. A Maruti bearing registration No. HP-02D-0351 came from Dharamshala at a high speed and hit Rekha Devi (PW4). The incident was witnessed by Shankar (PW6) and Ashwani Kumar (PW5). The accused was driving the vehicle, and the accident occurred due to the negligence of the accused and the high speed of the vehicle. The injured person was taken in the same vehicle to the hospital. The intimation was given to the police. An entry No. 8 was recorded in the Police Station. HC Harjeet Singh (PW11) was sent for the verification of the entry. He recorded the informant’s statement (Ext.PW1/A) and sent it to the Police Station, where FIR (Ext.PW11/A) was registered. He filed an application for the medical examination of the victim. Dr Sushma Sharma (PW3) examined the victim, Rekha Devi (PW4) and found that she had sustained multiple injuries which could have been caused in a Motor Vehicle accident. She advised an X-ray, which revealed a fracture in the tibia, hence, the injury was stated to be grievous. HC Harjeet Singh (PW11) visited the spot and prepared the site plan (Ext. PW11/B). He seized the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-02D-0351 along with documents vide memo (Ext.PW2/A). Rajinder Soga (PW9) took the photographs (Ext.PW9/A and Ext.PW9/B) whose negatives are Ext.PW9/C and Ext. PW9/D. The 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. The 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 11 witnesses to prove its case. Raj Kumari (PW1) is the informant, but she did not support the prosecution’s case. Onkar Singh (PW2) and Constable Joginder Singh (PW8) witnessed the recoveries. Dr Sushma Sharma (PW3) conducted the medical examination of the victim. Rekha Devi (PW4) is the victim. Ashwani Kumar (PW5) and Shankar (PW6) are the eyewitnesses. Raman Sharma (PW7) went through X-ray and found a fracture of the Tibia. Rajinder Soga (PW9) took the photographs. Rajiv Prashar (PW10) is the owner of the vehicle who proved that he had employed the accused as a driver. HC Harjeet Singh (PW11) investigated the matter.

5. The accused filed a written statement asserting that the complainant filed a