High speed alone does not establish rashness or negligence in a criminal trial as it is a relative term. Furthermore, the principle of res ipsa loquitur cannot be applied to convict a driver if a mechanical defect is proven to be the cause of the accident.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

1. H The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.3.2012, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kangra, Court No.1, District Kangra, HP (learned Trial Court), vide which the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the notice of accusation for which he was being tried. (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 toH the present appeal are that the police presented a challan before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was asserted that the police received a telephonic information on 9.6.2007 at 1:30 PM from Manoj Kumar Patial (PW1) that a bus bearing registration No. HP-39A-4635 fell off the road after hitting the parapet. 15-20 passengers sustained injuries in the accident. T he accident occurred because of the negligence of the driver and the high speed of the bus. The police recorded an entry (Ex.PW5/A). An FIR (Ex.PW8/A) was registered in the Police Station based on the information. SI Des Raj (PW9) went to the spot to verify the correctness of the information. He prepared the site plan (Ex.PW9/A). He filed an application (Ex.PW9/B) for the medical examination of the victims. Dr. Rubi Bhardwaj (not examined) medically examined the injured and issued MLCs (Ex.PA to Ex.PR). SI Des Raj (PW9) seized the bus along with documents vide memo (Ex.PW7/A). He took the photographs (Ex.PW6/A to Ex.PW6/G). HC Rajinder Kumar (PW4) mechanically examined the bus and issued the report (Ex.PW4/A). The statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after the completion of the investigation, a challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court.

3. The learned Trial Court found sufÏcient 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 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined nine witnesses to prove its case. Manoj Kumar (PW1) is the informant, who did not support the prosecution's case. Sandla Devi (PW2) is an eyewitness. Pawan Kumar (PW3) is the owner of the bus. HC Rajinder (PW4) conducted the mechanical examination of the bus. Constable Bishan Dass (PW5) recorded the entry in the daily diary. Gopal Dass (PW6) took the photographs. Harish Kumar (PW7) witnessed the recovery. Ramesh Kumar (PW8) signed the FIR. Des Raj (PW9) investigated the matter.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., claimed that he was innocent, and witnesses deposed falsely against him. He did not produce any evidence in his defence.

6. Learned Trial Court held that Manoj Kumar did not support the prosecution's case. Sandla Devi (PW2) stated in her cross-examination that the bus was stopped and the passengers were getting down from it. The report of the mechanical expert proved that the bus had a mechanical defect that could have led to the accident. The prosecution had failed to prove the rashness or neglige nce of the accused. Hence, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused.

7. Being aggrieved by the j