IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.M.P (M). No. 291/2010 Date of decision: 5.5. 2010 State of H.P. …applicant/appellant Versus Manga Ram ……Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 no For the appellant: Mr. Anshul Bansal Addl. Advocate General, with Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent : None. Surinder Singh J. (Oral) Leave to appeal is sought in this appeal by the State against the acquittal of the respondent in Criminal case No. 24/2007 decided on 27.10.2009 by the learned trial Court under Section 279, 337 Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard and gone through the file of the learned trial Court. 3. It is alleged that on 30.4.2007 at about 5.40 p.m., respondent was driving the Maruti Van bearing 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes - 2 - registration No. 18-A-1867. He was descending towards the bank of Giri River to wash his vehicle, which was not a public high way. The approach road to the Giri River was sandy, gritty and having round shape stones. There was a colony of rag-pickers on the bank of river Giri. PW1 Deepak Kumar was residing nearby. After taking bath, his two minor girls were returning to their huts. Due to rough road, the vehicle jumped on the round shape stones and the respondent could not control thus it is alleged to have hit the two minor girls, as aforesaid causing injuries to them. Thereafter PW1 Deepak Kumar, his brother PW2 Shera and some more persons came there, gave beatings to the respondent. The injured minor girls were taken to the Hospital for their treatment. Respondent also lodged report to the police about the beatings given to him. 4. Admittedly, the respondent was not driving the vehicle on a public highway in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life as such offence under Section 279 Indian Penal Code would not be attracted. In so far as Section 337 Indian Penal Code is concerned, for that prosecution is obliged to prove the rash or negligent act by the respondent, which was responsible for causing the said accident. 5. PW1 Deepak Kumar did not whisper even a single word about the rash or negligent act by the - 3 - respondent. However, he admitted that the road was rough, sandy and having gritty surface. This fact has also been corroborated by PW2 his brother Shera. Although he stated that the accident had taken place on account of rash or negligent driving by the respondent but it has also come in evidence that due to rough surface, neither respondent could drive the vehicle in a high speed nor particular act was attributed to him which constituted rash or negligent act causing accident. Wife of PW1 Deepak Kumar was also examined as PW6, who allegedly had also witnessed the occurrence but she did not support the case of the prosecution. Other witnesses are also from the same biradari and close relatives of the complainant but PW9 Pradeep Kumar, who happened to run a shop nearby although stated that respondent was responsible for the said accident but pertinently he stated that both the injured children were running one after the other on the bank of the river. Significantly he also stated that he had only seen the injured children while lying on the surface of the bank of the river and also did not see respondent being given beatings by PW1 and other persons, which means he suppressed the material facts. 6. The story of the prosecution is that the high speed of the vehicle was responsible for causing the said accident but it settled law that the speed is no - 4 - criteria to establish the ingredients of the offence. Further, the Investigating Officer has contradicted this version. According to him, vehicle on the said road/surface could be driven at a high speed. Therefore, in these circumstances main ingredients of rash or negligent act causing accident are lacking, therefore, the leave cannot be granted. As such the petition seeking leave to appeal is dismissed. May 5, 2010 (Surinder Singh),J (cm)