HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.A. No.: 615 of 2003 Decided on: 22.10.2010 State of H.P. ……… Appellant. Versus Harnam Singh ………Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellant: Mr.J.S.Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr.K.D. Sood, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J.(Oral): This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur, H.P., dated 21.8.2003, vide which, the respondent was acquitted of the Notice of Accusation put to him for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. was made by the complainant Siridhar before the police office that today on 16.11.1998, he was sitting near the Bus Stand. At about 7.15 p.m., a bus of HRTC bearing No.HP 22 0597 came form Sandhol side and struck against his daughter aged 6 years, who was crossing the road. She fell down and died at the spot. On this basis, a case was registered by the police and after ___________________________________________ Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - investigation, the challan was filed before the learned trial Court, who tried the respondent for the offences as detailed above leading to his acquittal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 4. On appraisal of the record of the case, it is clear that the prosecution had examined 9 witnesses to substantiate their case. The statement of PW-2 Jagdish Chand is formal in nature, who is a witness to the recovery of the bus vide recovery memo. PW-3 Parshottam Chand had conducted the mechanical examination and gave his report Ext.PW-3/A. PW-5 Shiv Kumar had taken the photographs at the spot and has proved the photographs and negatives. PW-6 Dr.Anil Kumar had conducted the postmortem on the body of the girl Sumna and gave his report Ext.PW-6/A and opined that the injuries were possible in a vehicular accident. The statement of other witnesses are formal in nature including that of the Investigating Officer. 5. The most material witness can be said to PW-1 Pritam Chand, father of the deceased, who has stated that his daughter had gone to the other side of the road for easing out and the bus of HRTC came and struck with her and she died at the spot. He has nowhere stated that he had witnessed the occurrence. He has also stated that he had gone for easing out on the side of the road. 4. A perusal of the statement of the only eye witness, namely, PW-4 Siridhar shows that the father of the deceased had reached the spot after about 20-25 minutes. Neither PW-1 Pritam Chand, father of the deceased girl, - 3 - himself stated that he saw the accident nor his presence at the spot, at the time of accident, was established from the testimony of the only eye witness PW-4 Siridhar examined in this case. PW-4 Siridhar has stated that he was sitting near his Rehri and the girl was crossing the road and the bus came at a fast speed and struck against the girl, who died at the spot. He, however, admitted that the accused was driving the vehicle at the relevant time. Neither he stated in regard to the speed of the vehicle nor he stated that the accused was driving the vehicle rashly or negligently, which led to the accident having taken place. The only word used in his statement is that the vehicle came at a fast speed but the speed of the vehicle was not stated by this witness nor it was stated that the accident occurred due to rash or negligent driving of the respondent. 5. The mere fact that an accident had taken place and a person has died in the accident is no proof of rash or negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. The rash or negligent driving has to be proved by some evidence so that the court can come to the conclusion that the vehicle was being driven rashly or negligently and the deceased had died due to rash or negligent driving of the respondent. I may make a reference to a decision of the Apex Court in Mahadeo Hari Lokre versus The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1972 Supreme Court 221, wherein it was observed as under: “If a person suddenly crosses the road the bus driver, however, slowly he may be driving, may not be in a position to save the accident. Therefore, it will not be possible to hold that the bus driver was negligent.” - 4 - 6. It is, therefore, clear that in case a person suddenly crosses the road, the driver howsoever vigilant he may be, he cannot avoid the accident. The observations made by the Apex Court are clearly applicable to the present facts. 7. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused and those findings cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court. Therefore, the appeal, being without any merit, is dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the respondent shall stand discharged. Oct.22, 2010. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge