An appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal unless the judgment is patently perverse, based on a misreading of evidence, or if no reasonable person could have recorded the acquittal; rash and negligent driving cannot be inferred solely from claims of 'high speed' without evidential foundation.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.08.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge III, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.11.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P (learned Trial Court) was set aside. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police presented a challan before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was asserted that the informant, Swaroop Krishan Bhardwaj (PW9), was driving a car bearing registration No. HP-37A-2814 on 27.12.2005. He was going towards the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate at about 11:15 AM. An Indica car, bearing registration No. HP-32A-0367 came from Mahakaal at high speed and hit the informant’s car. The informant’s car turned turtle, and the informant sustained injuries. Accused Kishan Pal was driving the Indica car, and the accident occurred due to his negligence and the high speed of the Indica car. An intimation was given to the police. ASI Amar Singh (PW10) and Constable Ajay Kumar went to the hospital for verification. ASI Amar Singh (PW10) filed an application (Ext.PW10/A) for conducting the medical examination of the informant. Dr Bindu Sood (PW1) examined the injured and found that he had sustained simple injuries which could have been caused in a Motor Vehicle accident. She issued the MLC (Ext.PW1/A). ASI Amar Singh recorded the informant’s statement (Ext.PW9/A) and sent it to the Police Station, where FIR (Ext.PW8/A) was registered. The site plan (Ext.PW10/B) was prepared. The photographs of the spot (Ext.PW10/C1 to Ext.PW10/C3) were taken. ASI Amar Singh seized the vehicles bearing registration No. HP-37A-2814 and HP-32A-0367 vide memo (Ext.PW2/A). Accused Krishan Pal produced the documents of his vehicle, which were seized vide memo (Ext.PW5/A). ASI Amar Singh (PW10) filed an application (Ext.PW10/D) for conducting the mechanical examination of the vehicles. Reports of mechanical examination (Ext.PW10/E and Ext.PW10/F) were obtained, in which it was mentioned that the vehicle had no defect that could have led to the accident. The statements of witnesses were recorded as per the version, and after the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the Court.

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 and 337 of the IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

The prosecution examined ten witnesses to prove its case. Dr Bindu Sood (PW1) conducted the medical examination of the injured. Sanjay Bhardwaj (PW2), HC Ajay Kumar (PW5) and HC Janak Chand (PW6) witnessed the recoveries. Kamlesh Chand (PW3) and Rajeev Bhardwaj (PW4) are the eyewitnesses. Kamla Devi (PW7) is the owner of the vehicle who proved that she had employed the accused as a driver. Sureshtha Thakur (PW8) signed the FIR and prepared the chargesheet. S.K. Bhardwaj (PW9) is the informant/injured. Amar Singh (PW10) investigated the matter.

The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., admitted that the police had seized the vehicle and he had produced the documents of the vehicle. He stated that a mechanical examination of his vehicle was conducted, but denied that a mechanical examination of the informant’s vehicle was also conducted. He admitted that photographs of the vehicles were taken. He claimed that the informant had wrongly turned the vehicle, which led to the accident. He was not driving the vehicle neg