The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove rash and negligent driving beyond reasonable doubt, as emphasized by the court and supported by relevant case laws and legal principles.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Complainant HHC Ved Parkash (PW-1) in his statement recorded under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.PC') Ext.PW1/A, on the basis of which formal FIR Ext.PW-9/A came to be registered against the petitioner-accused (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused'), alleged that on the intervening night of 28th February, 2008 and 1st March, 2008, he was on night patrolling duty along HHC Sant Ram at place called Shamsherpur/Heerpur and at about 3.30 a.m., a vehicle bearing No.HP-17A-0092 coming from Paonta Sahib in high speed turned turtle and further struck against the building of Pawar Clinic on account of rash and negligent driving of accused. The above named complainant alleged that all the occupants in the vehicle, i.e., two boys and one lady received injuries and they were admitted in the Pawar Nursing Home. Complainant specifically alleged that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving by driver of the vehicle bearing No.HP-17A-0092. On the basis of the aforesaid statement made by the complainant (PW-1), formal FIR Ext.PW-9/A was registered against the accused. After completion of investigation, police presented challan in the court of learned JMIC, Court No.1, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, who, being satisfied that prima facie case exists against the accused, put him notice of accusation for having committed offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

2. Prosecution, with a view to prove its case, examined as many as 9 prosecution witnesses, whereas the accused in his statement recorded under Section 313, Cr.PC denied the case of prosecution in toto and claimed that he has been falsely implicated. Accused also examined one witness namely Vijay Kumar as DW-1 in his defence.

3. Learned trial Court on the basis of evidence adduced on record by the respective parties held the accused guilty of having committed offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A, IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as under:-

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court, accused filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge Sirmaur District at Nahan, who vide judgment dated 1.10.2.011 dismissed the appeal, as a consequence of which, judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by court below came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, accused has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking his acquittal after setting aside the judgments recorded by the courts below.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, vis-a-vis judgments of conviction recorded by both the courts below, this Court finds force in the argument of Shri Karan Singh Kanwar, learned counsel for the accused that there is no specific evidence available on record to the effect that the vehicle in question was being driven rashly and negligently by the accused and as such, the learned court below has erred in holding the accused guilty for committing offences punishable under sections 279, 337 and 304-A, IPC, merely on the basis of high speed, if any, of the vehicle.

6. Though careful perusal of evidence led by the prosecution, be it ocular or documentary reveals that prosecution was able to establish on record that the vehicle was being driven in high speed before it turned turtle but none of the prosecution witnesses has stated s