IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No. 346 of 2003. Date of Decision: 23.7.2010. _______________________________________________ State of H.P. ….Appellant. Versus. Daulat Ram. ….Respondent. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General. For Respondent. : Mr. Suneet Mohan Goel, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). The State is aggrieved by the judgment passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, District Kullu, acquitting the respondent for offences under Sections 279, 304-A, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case is that on 9.4.2000, PW1 Sh. Khub Ram, who was lawyer by profession, along with his wife Smt. Chandi Devi, two brother-in-laws S/Sh.Mohar Singh and Partap Singh and mother-in-law Smt. Kamla Devi were Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? 2 returning to their house from “Haridwar” in a maruti Van No HP-49-0217 which was driven by the respondent accused. At around 8.00 p.m. near village Sidhwan, the owner of the vehicle Sh. Krishan also boarded the Van. When the vehicle reached near village ‘Chhet’ at around 8.30 p.m. and was negotiating a steep ascent, the Van reversed all of a sudden and rolled-down from the road. In this accident, complainant PW1 Khub Ram and his brother-in-law Mohar Singh came out of the vehicle but his wife Smt. Chandi Devi and brother-in- law Mohar Singh died in the accident. The other occupants of the Van sustained injuries. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has relied upon seven witnesses. The complainant and PW4 Sh. Pratap Singh were travelling in the Van. PW2 Sh. Vinod Kumar and PW3 Sh. Swami Dev reached the spot on receiving information that an accident had taken place. PW5 Sh. Om Prakash took the photographs on the spot. PW6 Sh. Jiwa Nand inspected the vehicle and prepared mechanical report Ext PW6/A. The learned trial Court holds that the Van was being driven by the accused, simple injuries were sustained by complainant Smt. Kamla Devi, Sh. Pratap Singh and Sh. Krishan Chand and simple/ grievous injuries by Sh. Khub Ram (PW1) and death of Smt. Chandi Devi and Sh. Mohar Singh are admitted fact. The only point for determination was as to whether the respondent has been guilty of rash and negligent 3 driving and contemplated by Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned court holds that in order to prove these facts, the necessary ingredients of rashness and negligence and the act of such a nature as to endanger human life or likely to cause hurt or injury to any person must be proved on the record. Both Sh. Khub Chand (PW1) and his brother-in- law Sh. Pratap Singh (PW4) have stated that they were returning to their house from Haridwar. There is no dispute that at Sidhwan, the owner Sh. Krishan Chand also boarded the vehicle. It is also not disputed that at village ‘Chhet’ the Van had negotiated a steep ascent. These facts stand established. The other important aspect of the evidence on record is that PW4 Sh. Pratap Singh who was sitting next to the driver admitted that when the Van was negotiating a steep ascent, the respondent changed gear but the Van went into the neutral gear. At this, he applied brakes but of no avail. The learned Court, then considers the report Ext.PW6/A which says that no analysis is possible as the van was completely smashed. The court holds that even PW4 Sh. Pratap Singh admits that the driver had tried to control the vehicle which rolled down. In the facts and circumstances of the case, even if I re-appreciate the entire evidence, I find that the ingredients of Section 279 and 304-A have not been established. 4 This appeal is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the respondent are discharged. It is clarified that the findings in this appeal shall not constitute as precedent finding in any case which may be brought for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act or otherwise. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. July 23, 2010(R)