IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 35 of 2004 Date of decision: 2.7.2010 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ State of H.P. ... Appellant Versus Sukh Dev …. Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant: Mr. J.S.Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ V.K.Ahuja, J (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the judgment of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class(2) Dehra dated 9.10.2003 vide which the respondent was acquitted of the notice of accusation put to him under Sections 279,337 IPC and under Sections 184/177 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 11.8.1997 around 3.25 P.M. a statement was made to the Police Officer under Section 154 Cr.P.C. by Brij Lal driver of HRTC bus No. HP-38- 2441. He alleged that he started from Bharwain to Pathankot at 7.00 AM alongwith Uttam Singh Conductor and when the bus reached Dhaliara at about 1.30 PM, another HRTC bus HP-4-2144 came at a fast speed and struck with his bus which was damaged and 7-8 passengers sitting in the bus suffered injuries. He learnt about the name of the driver of the bus as Sukh Dev and he lodged the report. After investigation, the challan was filed as against the Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 respondent driver of the bus, who was tried by the learned trial Court leading to his acquittal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 4. On appraisal of the evidence led by the prosecution, it is clear that there is no specific evidence on record in regard to rash or negligent driving of the respondent. The mere fact that an accident has taken place and some persons suffered injuries is itself no proof of rash or negligent driving which has to be proved by cogent and reliable evidence. PW-2 Brij Lal is the complainant and the driver of HRTC bus with which the accident took place. He stated that the accident took place due to rash or negligent driving of the respondent. Neither he stated anything in regard to the speed nor the manner in which the accident took place. He however, admitted that the bus of the respondent was going on a descend of about 8-10 KMs and the brakes are to be applied frequently when the bus is going on descend. He admitted that applying the brakes frequently the brake washers hot up and the brakes do not remain effective. He clearly admitted that where the accident took place it was deep descend at the spot. He neither admitted nor denied the suggestion that the brakes of the bus of the respondent were not working at the time of the accident. He also stated that the driver of the bus was trying to apply brakes at that time. He stated that when the washers get cold, the brakes start working again. This statement finds corroboration from the statement of PW-1 Arun Kumar Sethi mechanic who found no defect in the vehicles at the time of his examination. However, he also admitted the suggestion that in case the brakes are applied frequently, they become ineffective and after some time when they become cold, they start functioning and this might be the reason of the accident. 3 5. PW-3 Ashok Kumar is a formal witness. PW-4 Uttam Singh is the conductor of the bus who has not stated anything material as to the manner in which the accident took place or the speed and he being the conductor of the HRTC was not relied upon by the learned trial Court being an interested witness. He also stated that at the time of accident, he was issuing tickets and he does not know how the accident took place. 6. The other eye witnesses examined in this case, namely, PW-8 Seema Sharma and PW-6 Rumel Singh, the passengers and PW-7 Parkasho Devi have not stated anything in support of the case of the prosecution and have not stated that the accident took place due to rash or negligent driving of the respondent. Similarly, PW-5 Bandana Bhardwaj has also not stated anything to prove that the accident took place due to rash or negligent driving of the respondent. 7. From the above discussion of the evidence, it is clear prosecution has not led any evidence to show the manner in which the accident took place or about the speed of the vehicle and the witnesses have admitted that the possibility that the accident took place due to failure of brakes cannot be ruled out. Thus the conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt, cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference from this Court 8. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the respondent shall stand discharged forthwith. July 2, 2010 ( V.K. Ahuja ) (SDS) Judge