IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 156/2003 Date of decision: 30. 3. 2010 State of H.P. ….Petitioner Versus Pawan Singh ……Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Appellant: Mr. Anshul Bansal, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate. Surinder Singh (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. Respondent was tried and acquitted for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A Indian Penal Code, as such acquittal of the respondent has been challenged by the State by way of filing the present appeal. In short, prosecution case is that on 18.11.2001, respondent was driving truck bearing No. HR58-1396 on the State Highway Renuka Barag Road. At about 11 a.m., on reaching the place known as “maina”, it rolled down from a cliff, causing injuries to Smt. Mungi Devi Kalyan Singh, Vinod Kumar, Balak Ram and few others. Later Vinod Kumar 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes - 2 - and Balak Ram succumbed to the injuries on their way to the Hospital. Police was informed about the accident and the FIR Ext. PW12/A was registered on the basis of the statement Ext. PW1/A of Devi Dutt, recorded under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Police visited the spot, prepared the site plan and took the truck into possession along with its documents. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Mechanical examination of the truck was also got done. Injured persons were medically examined and after getting the postmortem report of the deceased persons, challan was presented in the court after completing the investigation. The respondent was charge sheeted for the offences aforesaid. He abjured the guilt and claimed trial. To prove its case prosecution examined its witnesses and at the end of the trial, respondent was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The defence raised by the respondent was that the accident had taken place on account of collapsing the retaining wall of the road and he was not rash or negligent in driving the vehicle. No evidence in defence was led and at the end of the trial the respondent was acquitted. Mr. Anshul Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General vehemently argued that the learned trial Court did - 3 - not appreciate the evidence on record in the right perspective and came to a wrong conclusion. The accident in question stands admitted. PW1 Devi Dutt is complainant who had seen the truck going off the way and he could not testify that the accident had taken place on account of rash or negligent driving of the respondent. However, he attributed the accident to the collapsing of the retaining wall. PW4 Mungi Devi and PW8 Gopal Singh were the occupants of the vehicle. They did not support the case of the prosecution to the effect that the respondent was rash or negligent in driving the vehicle. Although PW5 Kalyan Singh stated that respondent was driving the vehicle at a high speed but he did not say whether he was rash or negligent while driving the vehicle. Similar is the version given by PW9 Multan Singh but in addition he stated that driver had applied the brake which caused the collapsing of the retaining wall which fact is also corroborated by PW10 Gopal Singh. PW14 H.C. Sehdev Singh I.O, also admitted that at the site of the accident, retaining wall had collapsed. From the evidence on record, two versions have emerged. Out of the two one is suggestive of the fact that it was a kacha road and the driver while driving the truck had also applied the brakes and the retaining wall gave-a-way, with the result truck over turned causing the said accident. Evidence of the prosecution with respect to the rash or negligent driving is silent. Although some of the - 4 - witnesses stated that respondent was driving the truck in a high speed. But the speed is not the criteria to prove rash or negligent driving. It is settled law that where two views are deducible from the evidence on record, the view favourable to the accused has to be accepted. On culling the evidence, it is apparent that the prosecution has failed to prove the offences charged against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt as such the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial court are borne out from the record; therefore, the appeal lacks merit hence dismissed. Respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him at any stage of during the proceedings of this case. March 30, 2010 (Surinder Singh),J (cm)