In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court should not interfere if the view taken by the trial court is a reasonable one, even if another view is possible. Furthermore, 'high speed' alone is insufficient to prove rash and negligent driving without objective material establishing a breach of duty.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The present appeals are directed against the judgment dated 30.10.2012 passed by learned Additional Session Judge-I, Kangra at Dharmshala (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment of conviction dated 18.03.2008 and order of sentence dated 02.04.2008 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were set aside. Since both the appeals have arisen out of the common judgment, they are being taken up together for disposal by way of a common judgment. (The 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 to the present appeals are that the police presented a challan before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304 A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was asserted that the Azad Coach bearing registration No. HP22-6899 was going from Kangra to Sarkaghat, and the bus bearing registration No. HP-39A-1149 was going from Chintpurni towards Dharamshala on 29.07.2001. Both buses reached Bandh at about 3:00 PM. The drivers of both buses were driving them at a high speed. When the buses crossed each other, they scraped against each other. Babli (since deceased) and Anju Bala (PW7), travelling in the bus bearing registration No. HP-39A-1149 had extended their arms and heads outside the bus, and Karan, travelling in the bus bearing registration No. HP-22-6899 had extended his arm. All of them sustained injuries. The accident occurred because of the negligence of the drivers of the buses. An intimation was given to the police. ASI Pratap Chand (since deceased) went to the spot and prepared a rukka Mark ‘J’, which was sent to the Police Station, where FIR (Ext.PW5/A) was registered. Pratap Chand investigated the matter. He prepared the site plan (Ext.PW10/A). He seized the bus bearing registration No. HP-22-6899, along with the documents vide memo (Ext.PA). He also seized the bus bearing registration No. HP-39A-1149, along with the documents vide memo (Ext. PB). Jagdish Chand examined the buses and found that there was no mechanical defect in them that could have led to the accident. He issued the reports (Ext.PC and Ext.PD). Medical examination of Anju was conducted, and it was found that she had suffered a fracture of the left wrist joint and her muscles were badly crushed. Report (Ext.PX) was issued. Medical examination of the injured Karan was conducted, and it was found that he had sustained a fracture and other injuries. MLC (Ex.PE) was issued. Medical examination of Babli was conducted, and the fracture of the right mandible and right arm was detected. MLC (Ext.PE) was issued. Babli subsequently succumbed to her injuries. Her post-mortem examination was conducted, and a report (Ext.PH) was issued mentioning that the cause of death was excessive bleeding and multiple fractures. Statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court.

3. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, they were charged with the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of the IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined 10 witn