To secure a conviction under sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused committed a rash or negligent act which was the proximate cause of death; the mere occurrence of an accident does not imply criminal negligence.

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

1. This revision petition has been preferred against the acquittal of respondent-accused/Supinder Singh by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh vide judgment dated 20.01.2017 in case FIR No.477 dated 20.09.2013 registered under Sections 279, 337, 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Sector-39, Chandigarh and the subsequent dismissal of Criminal Appeal No. 229 of 15.04.2017 by the Court of Sessions Judge, Chandigarh.

2. Briefly, the version of the prosecution is that on 20.09.2013, on receipt of a wireless message regarding an accident having taken place near the roundabout of Sector 55/56 and 39/40, the officials arrived at the spot where they found an accidented vehicle and a bumper of the offending vehicle (tractor) bearing Registration No. PB-11-F-1553. By then, the injured had already been shifted to General Hospital, Sector-16, Chandigarh, wherefrom he was referred to PGIMER, Chandigarh. Since the injured was declared unfit to make a statement, hence, the police officials came back to the spot where they met a person named Sameem, who got his statement recorded to the effect that at the time of the accident, the tractor trolley turned towards the petrol pump slip roadside while the motorcycle came from the opposite side. The driver of the alleged tractor trolley was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, thus resulting in an accident as a result whereof, the motorcyclist fell on the road and received serious injuries. The motorcyclist disclosed his name as Baljit Singh and the registration number of the motorcycle was PB-23F-8092.

3. As the witness stated that the tractor was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver-Supinder Singh (respondent No.2 herein), hence, the FIR in question was registered.

4. On conclusion of the investigation, the final report was filed. After compliance with the statutory formalities, evidence of the respective parties was recorded.

5. The parties advanced arguments and on consideration thereof, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh discharged the respondent No.2-accused in the said case after recording a finding that the place of accident was a slip road and that the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased, who had been negligent in driving the motorcycle since it was he who was coming from the opposite side of the tractor and was riding on the wrong side. Besides, the witnesses also testified to the effect that they had only seen the driver of the tractor from behind wearing a parna. Accordingly, the benefit of the doubt was given to the accused, after recording a finding that there was no evidence of rash and negligent driving by the accused.

6. The operative part of the impugned judgment dated 20.01.2017, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh, reads thus:-

“12. After hearing both the learned counsels at length and after careful perusal of the evidence led by the prosecution as well as by the accused, I am of the considered opinion that in the present case accused has been charge-sheeted under section 279 IPC and 304-A of IPC. As per Section 279 of IPC requires two essentials (a). Driving of a vehicle and (b). Such driving must be so rash or negligent as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person. AS per Section 304-A of IPC following essential ingredients I. Death of a person, II. Death was caused by accused during any rash or negligence act, III. Act does not amount to culpable homicide. And to prove negligence under