IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.A. No.164 of 2001. Date of decision: 14.5.2008. State of H.P. …..Appellant -Versus- Surinder Singh @ Shindu ….Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the Appellant: Mr.Vivek Thakur, Addl.A.G. For Respondent: Mr.Rakesh Raghuvanshi, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amb decided on 15.9.2000 whereby the respondent-accused has been acquitted of having committed offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 177 and 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 27.10.1999 at about 11 a.m. scooter being driven by PW-1 Ravinder Kumar was going from Mehatpur towards Amb side near Heera Nagar. According to the prosecution the accused was driving bus No.HP-38- 3557 and he came from behind driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner and hit the scooter from behind. After the accident the matter 2 was reported to the police. The Investigating Officer conducted the investigation, challan was filed and the matter was tried in Court. The learned trial Court acquitted the accused. According to the trial Court it was the scooter which hit the bus from behind and the case of the prosecution that the bus hit the scooter has not been proved. While coming to this conclusion the learned trial Court has relied upon the mechanical reports. According to the mechanical report Ext.PW-7/B the main damage to the scooter was on the right side and there was no damage on the back of the scooter. As far as the report with regard to the bus is concerned according to the report there were fresh scratches on the right left side of the front bumper of the bus. I have failed to understand the reasoning of the learned trial Court. The trial Court has totally misunderstood and mis-appreciated the mechanical reports. He has also literally translated the prosecution allegations. The prosecution in its allegations in Hindi had alleged that “bus ne pichay se scooter ko takkar mari”. This did not mean that the scooter was hit from behind but it only meant that bus was coming from behind. In addition to the mechanical report there are photographs of the site which had been duly proved on record. The photographs show that on the left side of the front bumper of the bus there is a fresh dent. From the perusal of the site plan as well as the statements of the witnesses and the mechanical reports it is more than apparent that the bus was probably in the process of overtaking the scooter and 3 while coming from behind the left side of the front bumper of the bus hit the right side of the scooter. Even though I have come to the conclusion that it was not the scooter which hit the bus from behind, I am still of the opinion that the accused cannot be convicted though for reasons other than those stated by the learned trial Court. A perusal of the site plan shows that the width of the pucca portion of the road was 24 ft. The scooter was being driven 9 ft. from the left side of the edge of the pucca portion. A scooterist is not expected to drive on the centre of the road. He is expected to be on the left of the road. It also appears that the bus was in the process of overtaking the scooter and in this process the left side of the front bumper hit the right side of the scooter. To prove criminal rash and negligent act on the part of the drive some cogent evidence had to be led. Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows: “279.Rash driving or riding on a public way.- Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.” It must be proved by the prosecution that the vehicle was being driven in a manner so rash or negligent so as to endanger human life or likely to cause hurt or injury. No such evidence has been led by the prosecution. As far as PW-1 the injured is concerned, according to him he was ahead of the bus and he was suddenly hit by the bus 4 and therefore he cannot have any knowledge about the manner in which the bus was being driven. As far as the two alleged eye- witnesses are concerned both of them have clearly admitted that their attention to the accident was drawn only when they heard a sound of crash. Therefore, they have witnessed the accident after the impact had taken place. As such their statements that prior to the impact taking place the driver of the bus was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner cannot be accepted to be correct. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused was guilty of rash and negligent driving. There is no merit in the appeal which is dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. May 14, 2008. ( Deepak Gupta ), PV Judge