IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. 386 of 2004 Date of Decision: 25th November, 2010 __________________________________________________________ State of H.P. ….Appellant. Versus Arun Kumar ….Respondent. ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1No. ___________________________________________________________ For the Appellant: Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondent: Mr. Puneet Rajta, Advocate vice Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, Advocate. __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J (oral). The State is aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Appellate Court acquitting the respondent herein for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code. 2. In brief, the case as pleaded by the prosecution is that on 6.3.1999 complainant Man Singh alongwith his wife was going from Baijnath to Paprola on his scooter No. HP-37-0774. At about 5.30 P.M. when they reached near Binwa bridge, a private bus came from the opposite side and the complainant tried to allow the bus to overtake but all of a sudden another scooter No. HP-37-1180 which was driven by the 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 respondent came there from the opposite side and tried to overtake the bus on the bridge, as a result of which he collided with the scooter of the complainant. Both the complainant and his wife fell down and sustained injuries. Man Singh sustained simple injuries while his wife sustained grievous injuries. The injured were taken to the Civil Hospital, Baijnath and proceedings initiated against the accused/respondent. 3. On the evidence on record, the learned trial Court basically laid stress on the fact that the accused had tried to overtake the bus by driving the scooter in rash or negligent manner and then concluded that the respondent was guilty of offences as charged and proceeded to sentence him under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC. 4. The respondent appealed. The learned Appellate Court re-appreciated the entire evidence. It also considered the fact that though the prosecution has proved the injuries on Man Singh and his wife, but that per se is not sufficient to establish criminality. Driving negligently is one thing, but rash and negligent driving as required by law has not been established on the basis of the evidence. For this purpose, the Court relied upon the judgment of Kanshi Ram vs. Union of India, 1974 C.L.R. 1707. 5. I have heard learned Additional Advocate General as also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 6. I am not persuaded to hold that the view which has been taken by the learned Appellate Court is against the evidence on record. True, rash and negligent driving has assumed alarming proportions, but at the same time, an accident does not per se lead to the conclusion that party is guilty of rash and negligent driving as postulated by law. I cannot accept this submission made on behalf of the State that since the accident has occurred that by itself constitutes an offence. What was required to be proved on record that the respondent was driving his scooter in a manner 3 which would endanger the life and safety of other people walking on the road, which fact has not been proved. It has been held more than once that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, the one favouring the accused should be preferred by the Court more especially in appeal against the acquittal. (See State of Maharashtra vs. Tulshiram Bhanudas Kamble and others, (2007) 14 SCC 627.) There is thus no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the respondent are discharged. (Dev Darshan Sud) Judge November 25th, 2010(ms)