IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 579 of 2001. Date of decision: 8.9.2008 State of Himachal Pradesh Appellant. Versus Rajeev Singh @ Mindhu Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General For the respondent: Mr. Dinesh Thakur, vice Mr. M.S.Chandel, Advocate. Per Deepak Gupta, J. (oral) This appeal is directed against the judgement dated 30.12.2000 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial magistrate, Amb, District Una, whereby he has acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 I.P.C. The prosecution story in brief is that on 17.5.2000 Smt. Pushpa Devi had gone with her sister-in-law Kesri Devi and nephew Surinder Singh to the hospital at Daulatpur. After the doctor prescribed the medicines she had gone across the road to the shop of a chemist to purchase medicines. When she came out of the shop of the chemist and was about to cross the road a scooter bearing No. PB-07F-1643 came from Talwara side. The scooter was 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 being driven at a high speed. The scooter hit Smt. Pushpa Devi who suffered injuries in the leg and other associated injuries in her lower limb. It is alleged that accused Rajeev Singh alias Mindhu was driving the scooter. After the complaint was lodged, the accused was summoned. He pleaded not guilty. His case is of denial simpliciter. The prosecution in support of its case has examined a number of witnesses. PW-1 Pushpa Devi has supported what she had stated in his complaint. According to her, the scooter No.1643 was being driven by Rajeev Singh, accused, at a high speed. She states that she had read the number of the scooter when she fell down and that the name of Rajeev was told to her by PW-3 Arjun Singh. According to her, the accident occurred due to the fact that the scooter was being driven at a high speed. PW-2 Kesri Devi is the sister-in-law of Pushpa Devi. According to her, one scooter going at a high speed hit Pushpa Devi. She has not stated a word as to what was the scooter number though she has stated that the accident took place due to the mistake of the accused and the fact that he was driving the scooter at a high speed. PW-3 Arjun Singh is stated to be another eye witness. According to him, a scooter which was being driven by accused Rajeev Kumar came at a high speed from Talwara side and hit the right leg of Pushpa Devi. He further states that accident occurred due to the mistake of the accused. The cross- examination of these witnesses shows that the defence has not denied the fact that Pushpa Devi has suffered the injury. In fact the suggestions made indicate that the presence of the accused is also 3 not denied, since to some of the witnesses a suggestion has been put that the accused performed an humanitarian task by taking the injured to the hospital. The defence taken is that Pushpa Devi fell of her own accord from a step outside the chemist shop and injured herself. Keeping in view the three witnesses referred to above, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has proved that injury of Pushpa Devi was caused by the scooter which was being driven by accused Rajeev Singh. Having held so, the other fact that the prosecution must prove is that the scooter was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. 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.” To bring the offence under this Section, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that the accused was driving the vehicle on the public way in a manner so rash and negligent so as to endanger human life or cause any injury to any other person. Other than the bald assertion of the witnesses that the scooter was being driven fast, there is no allegation with regard to rash and negligent driving of the scooter. Speed by itself is not rashness unless other factors are also proved. In the present case, the accident has taken place opposite the hospital, admittedly, in an area where there are number of shops. Therefore, if it is proved that the scooter was 4 being driven at a high speed that by itself may be an act of negligence. But none of the witnesses in examination-in-chief have stated what was the speed of the vehicle. What is fast or slow may differ from person to person. Somebody should have given the estimated speed of the vehicle. Even the facts proved by the prosecution do not show that the scooter was being driven at an excessive speed. The site map Ext.PW-10/B does not show any skid marks, etc. If the scooter was being driven at a high speed it would not have halted immediately after hitting the victim; the scooter would have gone ahead. Another important factor is that the accused Rajeev Singh did not run away from the side of the accident. He himself took the victim to the hospital. The witnesses of the prosecution themselves have also stated that the accident occurred due to the mistake of the accused. There is a difference between a mistake and a rash and negligent act. The prosecution has failed to prove that the accused was driving the scooter in a rash and negligent manner. Therefore, for reasons totally different from those given by the learned trial Court, I find no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds of the accused are discharged. September 8, 2008. (Deepak Gupta), J. ™