IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 225 of 2003. Date of Decision: 3rd May, 2010. _______________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh ….Appellant. Versus Dinesh Mohan ……..Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? For the appellant : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Additional Advocate General and Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent : Ms. Vidhushi Sharma, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH, J. (Oral) 1. Heard and gone through the record. 2. The respondent was charge-sheeted and acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case, in short, can be stated thus. On 16th March, 1999 at about 5.30 p.m., the police team headed by SI Ruldu Ram, was on traffic checking near village Dangoli. PW-5 Kamal Dev was driving the jeep and injured PW-4 Jagjiwan Lal was traveling in his jeep. It was stopped by the police and the police Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - demanded the documents. The driver of the jeep parked the jeep on the extreme left side of the road. He took out the documents, went to the SI Ruldu Ram and presented for checking. Jagjiwan Lal also accompanied him. After completing the formalities, both of them returned. When Jagjiwan Lal was in the process of getting into the jeep he was allegedly hit by the respondent with his scooter, which was allegedly driven by him rashly and negligently, as such he sustained fracture on his leg. The injured was taken to the hospital and after managing the injuries Medico Legal Certificate Ext.PW-11/B was obtained. Investigation of this case was conducted by Head Constable Shamsher Singh, who had also prepared the site plan, but he had died. Thus he could not be examined. The photographs of the place of accident were taken wherein the scooter has only been shown. The jeep was removed from the spot. After recording the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and on completion of the investigation, Challan was presented in the Court for the trial of the respondent under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The learned trial Court acquitted the respondent for want of requisite evidence with respect - 3 - to the rash and negligent driving of the scooter by the respondent. 5. I have reappraised the evidence on record. 6. PW-5 Kamal Dev, driver of the jeep, who was accompanying the injured, PW-6 Sudarshan Kumar, eye witness, PW-4 Jagjiwan Lal injured and PW-10 SI Ruldu Ram, have only stated that the scooterist was driving the scooter on a very high speed, which caused the accident. 7. It is a settled law that high speed is not a criterion even to infer the rash and negligent act of driving. The law or usage of the road is also not the criteria of negligence. 8. To bring the case under the mischief of the aforesaid Sections, the prosecution is obliged to inter alia prove that such driving must be in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life or likely to cause hurt or injury to any person. The prosecution has failed to prove in this case the alleged over-hasty act which was opposed to deliberate act and also that the omission was caused by not doing an act to which a reasonable man would do. 9. Although the accident stands proved, which according to the prosecution witnesses in the case in hand, was attributable to the high speed. The relevant - 4 - factors, consisting of the offence charged, were rightly found absent by the learned trial court. Thus, the findings of acquittal are borne out from the evidence. There is no perversity in the judgment of acquittal. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. 10. The respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him at any stage during the proceedings of this case. 11. Send down the record forthwith. May 3, 2010. (Surinder Singh), J. (rc)