Res ipsa loquitur applies to unexplained vehicle deviation from road, shifting negligence burden to driver; revisional jurisdiction limited, no reappreciation absent perversity.

JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 19.04.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.08.2013, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P., were partly upheld. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly, the facts leading to the present revision are that the police filed a challan against the accused for committing the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act). It was asserted that a truck bearing registration No. HP11-3710 fell on the official residence on 26.02.2025 at 12:00 a.m. Extensive damage was caused to the house. A complaint (Ext.PW-1/A) was made to the police. F.I.R. (Ext.PW-8/B) was registered. SI Ram Nath (PW-9) investigated the matter. He prepared a site plan (Ext.PW-9/A). He seized the vehicle bearing registration No.HP11-3710 vide memo (Ext.PW-3/A). He also seized the registration certificate and insurance of the truck vide memo (Ext.PW-3/B). The accused Rajinder Kumar produced his driving license, which was seized vide memo (Ext.PW-6/A). HC Dev Raj (PW-7) conducted the mechanical examination of the truck and found that the body of the truck was extensively damaged because of the accident, but there was no mechanical defect in the vehicle that could have led to the accident. The photographs of the spot (Ext.PW-9/B to Ext.PW-9/G), whose negatives are Ext.PW-9/H to Ext. PW- 9/M were taken. Roop Lal (PW2) prepared an estimate of the damage (Ext.PW-2/A and Ext.PW-2/B). Statements of the prosecution witnesses were recorded as per their accounts, and after completing the investigation, the challan was prepared and submitted 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 & 427 of the IPC and Section 187 of the M.V. Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined ten witnesses to prove its case. Garja Ram (PW-1) is the informant. Roop Lal (PW-2) prepared the estimates of damage. Khalith Ram (PW-3), Prakash Chand (PW-4), and Daulat Ram (PW-6) are the witnesses to various recoveries. Kanhaiya Ram (PW-5) is the owner of the truck. HC Dev Raj (PW-7) mechanically examined the truck. ASI Deep Ram (PW-8) signed the F.I.R. SI Ram Nath (PW-9) investigated the matter. Krishan Singh (PW-10) took photographs.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., denied the prosecution’s case in its entirety. He did not produce any evidence in defence.

6. Learned Trial Court held that the prosecution witnesses had not seen the truck falling on the road, and they came to the spot after the accident. Therefore, they could not depose about rashness or negligence of the accused. It was duly proved that the accused was driving the truck. He has not explained how the truck went off the road and fel