The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for admissible evidence to prove the case of gross rash and negligent driving under the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra Maithani, J.

By means of the instant revision, the following judgments and orders are to put to challenge:-

(i) Judgment and order dated 16.07.2010, passed in Criminal Case No.489 of 2005, State Vs. Pradeep Hindwal, by the court of Judicial Magistrate, Karnaprayag, District Chamoli (for short, “the case”). By it, the revisionist has been convicted under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC and sentenced as hereunder:-

(a) Under Section 279 IPC, fine of Rs.1,000/. In default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days.

(b) Under Section 337 IPC, fine of Rs.500/. In default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days.

(c) Under Section 338 IPC, fine of Rs.1,000/. In default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days.

(d) Under Section 304-A IPC, one year’s simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/. In default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a further period of 30 days.

(ii) Judgment and order dated 04.07.2014, passed in Criminal Appeal No.7 of 2010, Pradeep Hindwal vs. State of Uttarakhand, by the court of Sessions Judge, Chamoli (Gopeshwar) (for short, “the appeal”). By it, the judgment and order passed in the case has been affirmed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. The facts necessary to appreciate the controversy briefly stated are as follows. On 20.03.2005, the applicant was driving a bus bearing Registration No. UA11-0263 (for short, “the bus”). The bus was driven in a very rash and negligent manner. The revisionist was not allowing a bus, which was following him, to overtake. He was driving in an irregular manner so that the bus which was following him could not overtake. In that process, at about 10:00 in the morning near Baidanu, the bus fell down in a gorge, due to which, eight persons died and injured. A report was lodged, in which, after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC against the revisionist and cognizance was taken. The accusation was read over to the revisionist. He did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses namely, PW1 Sanjay Kumar, PW2 Umesh Sati, PW3 Vikram Singh, PW4 Pradeep, PW5 Ram Chandra Singh, PW6 Ganga Prasad, PW7 Sanjay Kumar, PW8 Padam Singh and PW9 SI V.P. Sharma.

5. After hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and order passed in the case, the revisionist has been convicted and sentenced, as stated hereinbefore. The impugned judgment and order, passed in the case was unsuccessfully challenged in the appeal. Hence, the revision.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist would argue that the accident is a pure accident due to technical fault in the bus. The applicant was not driving in a rash and negligent manner. Reference has been made to the statements of PW1 Sanjay Kumar, PW5 Ram Chandra Singh and PW7 Sanjay Kumar, to argue that these witnesses have stated that there were some technical fault in the bus.

7. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that the case is proved and no interference is warranted.

8. PW1 Sanjay Kumar, was a passenger in the bus at the time of incident. He also sustained injuries. According to him, he heard some voice from below the bus and suddenly the bus fell down in the valley.

9. PW5 Ram Chandra Singh had inspected the bus after the accident. In his cross-examination, he told that the Pattas of both the sides were damaged. According to him, if the Pattas are broken, there are chances of accident.

10. Reference has also been made by learned counsel for the revisionist to the statement of PW7 Sanjay Kumar. It is argued that according to this witness, he boarded the bus 10 paces before the accident took place. It is argued that if a person travelled only 10 paces in the bus, he could not say about the manner of driving.

11. This is a revision, the scope is quite limited to the extent of examining legality, propriety and correctn