To secure a conviction under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC, the prosecution must prove specific acts of rashness or negligence. A mere accident or high speed is insufficient to establish criminal liability; the burden remains on the prosecution to prove the manner of driving constituted a reckless disregard for safety.

Sandeep Sharma, Judge (Oral)

1. Instant Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 / 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, lays challenge to judgment dated 01.07.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Kangra at Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh, in Cr. Appeal No.26-D/X/10/06, affirming the judgment of conviction dated 29.08.2006 and sentence dated 30.08.2006, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh, in criminal case No.26-II/04, whereby learned trial Court, while holding petitioner accused guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of IPC, convicted and sentenced him as under:-

2. In nutshell, case of the prosecution is that on 02.12.2003, person, namely Neeraj Kumar was going from Dharamshala to Kangra, driving a scooter bearing registration No.HP-40-6949 and alongwith him one Sh. Manoj Kumar was a pillion rider. When aforesaid scooter reached near Shahid Samarak, Dharamshala, a Tata Sumo jeep bearing registration No.PB-06A-1993 came from opposite side, being driven rashly and negligently by accused Manohar Lal, who, while, overtaking a standing jeep, hit the scooter of Neeraj Kumar, as a result whereof, Neeraj Kumar and Manoj Kumar fell down and became unconscious. Two other persons, namely Sh. Rajeev Kumar Dhiman and Sh. Malkiat Singh, who at relevant time were also coming behind the scooter being driven by aforesaid Neeraj Kumar, took injured to the hospital, whereafter the matter was reported to the police.

3. Complainant Manoj Kumar got his statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C., alleging therein that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the accused. In the aforesaid background, FIR, as detailed hereinabove, came to be lodged against the accused, wherein similar allegations, as have been noted hereinabove, have been recorded. After completion of the investigation, police presented the challan in the competent court of law.

4. Learned trial Court after satisfying itself that a prima-facie case exists against the accused, framed notice of accusation under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of IPC against him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. Prosecution with a view to prove its case examined as many as 13 witnesses. Accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied the case of the prosecution in toto and claimed himself to be innocent. Though, opportunity was granted to the accused to lead evidence in defence, but in vain.

6. Learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence made available on record by the prosecution, found accused guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of IPC and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him, as per the description given hereinabove.

7. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by learned trial Court, present petitioner-accused filed an appeal under Section 374(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Kangra at Dharamshala, which came to be registered as Criminal Appeal No. 26-D/X/10/06, but same was also dismissed vide judgment dated 01.07.2013. In the aforesaid background, present petitioner ap