The court emphasized the importance of proving rash and negligent driving in cases involving accidents, and rejected claims of technical faults without sufficient evidence.

JUDGMENT :

This Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.05.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ranikhet, District –Almora in Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2009 “Vijay Ram Vs. State of Uttaraskhand”, whereby, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ranikhet affirmed the judgment and order dated 25.03.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ranikhet in Criminal Case No. 820 of 2001 “State Vs. Vijay Ram”, whereby, the revisionist-accused was convicted under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC and was sentenced Rs. 500/- as fine in each of the offence under Section 279, 337, 388 IPC and two years rigorous imprisonment under section 304-A IPC and fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation that if the fine is not paid, will have to undergo 4 months additional simple imprisonment.

2. As per the case of the prosecution, a first information report was lodged against the revisionist-accused in Police Station–Ranikhet by informant Bharat Bhushan S/o Dol Singh (PW-1) with the allegations that the informant was the resident of Village–Sauni (Devlikhet); according to informant he boarded the bus no. U.P. 02B-7025 of KMOU for going to his village; there were 42-45 other passengers including Shri Pramod Kumar S/o Nandan Ram, R/o Lakhanpur Ramnagar and Shri Lalit Mohan Papne S/o Amba Dutt Papne, R/o Sauni, Talla Dabar; when this bus reached near Village - Timila Diggi at around 2:00 PM the driver of the bus Vijay Ram S/o Madhoram, R/o Village–Chapar, Post Office-Betalghat, Tehsil–Betalghat, District–Nainital, presently residing near Normal School, Ramnagar, while driving the bus very rash and negligently plunged it into a 60-70 feet deep ravine. In this accident 35 passengers were got injured and 07 passengers were died on the spot. One of the passengers was reported to have died while being taken to the hospital. On the aforesaid first information report (Ex.Ka-1), the chick first information report (Ext. Ka-11) at 19:10 hours, registered in Police Station–Ranikhet as Case Crime No. 01 of 2001 under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC against the revisionist-accused.

3. After investigation the charge-sheet was submitted against the revisionist-accused and the cognizance was taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ranikhet on 24.12.2001 and a Criminal Case No. 820 of 2001 “State Vs. Vijay Ram” was directed to be registered.

4. After complying with the procedural necessity of supplying the prosecution documents to the revisionist-accused, his statement was recorded under Section 251 Cr.P.C. to which he pleaded not guilty and stated that the case of the prosecution was lodged against him wrongly. It is pertinent to mention here at this stage that in answer to question no.-2 put to the revisionist-accused under Section 251 of Cr.P.C., it was categorically stated by him that the accident was not due to rash and negligent act of the revisionist-accused but due to breakage of front-axle and brake fail of the vehicle.

5. The prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses in order to substantiate the charges of rash and negligent driving and causing death and injuries to the passengers of the bus. As such PW-1 Lalit Mohan Papne, PW-2 Chandra Shekhar Arya, PW-3 Darban Singh, PW-4 Bharat Bhushan (informant), PW-5 Vipin Chandra Tripathi, PW-6 Harish Chandra Singh, PW-6A Narayan Singh (witness of the inquest of deceased Pan Singh), PW-7 Jodha Singh Bisht, PW-8 Narayan Dutt Joshi (witnesses of the inquest of deceased Mohan Singh S/o Laxman Singh), PW-9 Bhuwan Chandra (witness of the inquest of deceased Laxman Singh S/o Mangal Singh), PW-10 Shambhu Prasad (witness of the inquest of deceased Laxman Singh S/o Mangal Singh), PW-11- Govind Ballabh (scribe of the FIR), PW-12 Chandra Singh Rathor (Investigating Officer of the case). Later on CW-1 Foreman- Dinesh Chandra Adhikari and CW-2 Dinesh Kumar Verma were also examined by the learned Appellate Court during appeal invoking the provisions of Section 391 Cr.P.C