Interference with acquittal only if perverse or ignoring material evidence; driver not negligent if pedestrian suddenly crosses road with no specific proof of excessive speed beyond vague 'high speed' and witness opinions invalid on negligence.

Judgment :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15.10.2014, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) vide which judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.06.2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.1, Rohru, District Shimla, (learned Trial Court) were set aside. (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 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act). It was asserted that informant Rameshwar Singh (PW-1) had driven his vehicle to Rohru on 16.11.2010. He parked his pickup at a workshop owned by Bharat Thakur at Samala. A motorcycle bearing registration No. CH-04A-1623 came from Kansakoti at 11:30 a.m. at a high speed and hit the informant. The informant fell and sustained injuries. Bharat Thakur (PW- 2) and Uttam Singh (PW-4) carried the informant to Civil Hospital Rohru. The accident occurred due to the high speed of the motorcycle and the negligence of the motorcyclist. The matter was reported to the police. An entry (Ext.PW-7/A) was recorded in the daily diary. ASI Amar Singh (PW-8) and Constable Nanak Chand (PW-5) went to the hospital for verification. ASI Amar Singh (PW-8) recorded the informant’s statement (Ext.PW-1/A), which was sent to the Police Station, where F.I.R. (Ext.PW-6/B) was registered. ASI Amar Singh (PW-8) investigated the matter. He prepared the site plan (Ext.PW-8/A). Dr A.K. Verma examined the informant and found that he had sustained multiple injuries, which could have been caused within 24 hours of examination. He advised x-rays. The x-rays were taken, and fractures of the left patella and left distal radius were detected; hence, the nature of the injury was stated to be grievous, and MLC (Ext. PX) was issued. The accused produced the motorcycle and his driving license, which were seized vide memo (Ext.PW-2/A). The statements of prosecution witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after 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, 337 and 338 of the IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined eight witnesses to prove its case. Rameshwar Singh (PW-1) is the informant. Bharat Singh (PW-2), Ishwar Singh (PW-3) and Uttam Singh (PW-4) are the eyewitnesses. Nanak Chand (PW-5) carried thestatement of the informant to the Police Station. HC Puran Singh (PW-6) signed the F.I.R. Constable Jai Singh (PW-7) proved the entry in the daily diary, ASI Man Singh (PW-8) investigated the matter.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., admitted that he was driving the motorcycle bearing registration No. CH-04A-1623. He claimed that he was driving the motorcycle towards its right side. Rameshwar Singh