Conviction under rash driving provisions set aside in revision for failure to prove driver's identity: no investigation explanation, no test identification parade, unreliable dock identification by prior-unknown witnesses renders evidence insufficient.

Judgment :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 02.06.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, Camp at Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which judgment of conviction dated 28.04.2008 and order of sentence dated 05.05.2008, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. II, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P., (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 leading to the present revision are that the police filed a challan against the accused for committing the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act). It was asserted that informant Prem Chand (PW-2) was waiting for the bus on 24.10.2005 outside his home. A tractor bearing registration No. HP-36A-0212 came from Jawalamukhi at a high speed and hit the informant. The informant fell and sustained multiple injuries. The driver of the tractor reversed it and went to Jawalamukhi. The injured person was taken to the hospital. Intimation was given to the police. An entry No. 6 was recorded in the Police Station. HC Babu Ram (PW-8) went to the hospital for verification. He recorded the informant’s statement (Ext.PW-2/A) and sent it to the Police Station, where F.I.R. (Ext.PW8/A) was registered. Dr Salinder Verma (PW-1) examined the injured and found that he had sustained simple and grievous injuries, which could have been caused in a motor vehicle accident. He issued MLC (Ext.PW-1/A). Dr A.K. Kaundal (PW-9) treated the informant and issued the case summary (Ext.PW-9/A). HC Babu Ram (PW-8) seized the tractor bearing registration No. HP-36A-0212 vide memo (Ext.PW-5/A). Hansraj (PW-6) produced the documents of the tractor, which were seized vide memo (Ext.PA). Kuldeep Singh (PW7) mechanically examined the tractor and found that there was no defect in it, which could have led to the accident. He issued his report (Ext.PW7/A). Statements of the prosecution witnesses were recorded as per their version. The challan was prepared after completing the investigation 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, 337 and 338 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 nine witnesses to prove its case. Salinder Verma (PW-1) medically examined the informant/victim. Prem Chand (PW-2) is the informant/victim. Vikaram Jit Singh (PW-3) and Hansraj (PW-4) are eyewitnesses. Sanjay (PW-5) and Hans Raj (PW-6) witnessed various recoveries. Kuldeep Singh (PW-7) mechanically examined the vehicle. HC Babu Ram (PW-8) investigated the matter. Dr A.K. Kaundal (PW-9) treated the informant.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P