Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.675 of 2001. Dated of Decision: November 20, 2008. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- State of H.P. ……… Appellant. Versus Nokh Ram. ……. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Appellant : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J (oral): The State has challenged the acquittal of respondent for the offence under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code, in Criminal Case No.2/2 of 2000, passed by the learned trial court, on 23.7.2001, on the grounds that the learned trial court did not appreciate the evidence led by the prosecution in the right perspective and the reasoning given for the acquittal is unreasonable. Shri Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General, has led me through the evidence on record and ventilated that the judgment of the acquittal is perverse and there is a material to convert it into conviction. Shri Suneet Goel, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment and ventilated that no 2 independent witness was examined and the complainant-bus driver was driving in a high speed. In short, the prosecution story is that on 17.12.1999, at about 2.30 p.m., the HRTC bus, which was being driven by PW6 Ashok Kumar reached near Diarighat, a Truck-Tipper No.HP-07-3097 driven by the respondent came from the opposite side. While negotiating the curve he left his own side and hit the rear (emergency) window of the bus causing damage to it. It is alleged that the respondent was negligent in driving his truck. The matter was reported to the police. Statement of PW6 was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C., which culminated into FIR under the aforesaid section. Both the vehicles were taken into possession. Its mechanical examination was conducted. Police also took the photographs and recorded the statements of the witnesses. After completing the investigation, it was presented in the court for trial of the respondent. The respondent was put on trial for the offence aforesaid. At the end of trial, he was acquitted on the grounds that the photographs Exts.P1 to P6 were not showing the exact location of the accident and PW8, the Investigating Officer did not deny the suggestion that the complainant had taken the bus to his own side after the accident. Since the driver and conductor of the bus were the interested witnesses and admitted that they were late on that day, it was observed that 3 while negotiating the curve this accident might have taken place due to the error of judgment. PW6 Ashok Kumar driver and PW7 Ram Singh conductor of the HRTC bus, have corroborated the prosecution case. PW6 Ashok Kumar has stated that when they reached at Diarighat, the truck (Tipper), which was being driven negligently by respondent came on the wrong side and hit the emergency door of his bus on the rear portion thereof, but nobody was injured. He has proved his report Ex.PW6/A given to the police. Although, in his cross-examination he admitted that he was late on that day, but there is nothing on record to show that he was at fault while driving his vehicle. PW7 had lent strength to his version. Both the witnesses attributed the rash and negligent driving of the truck by the respondent. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the respondent has even denied the accident and further expressed his ignorance about taking both the vehicles in to possession by the police and its release thereafter on supurdari. According to him, he was falsely implicated and it was the bus driver who was in speed. It is a settled law that speed is not a criteria to infer the rash and negligent driving of any of the vehicle, but it is the omission or commission of his act, which makes the driver of any vehicle responsible for his rash and negligent act. No plea of due care and caution in driving the vehicle was raised by the respondent in order to rebut the above evidence. The reasoning given by the trial court for acquittal of the 4 respondent is thus perverse as the offence alleged stands proved. The respondent is held guilty for the offence under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code, therefore, his acquittal is set-aside and he is hereby convicted for the said offence. Thus the appeal is allowed. The accident had taken place in the year 1999. The respondent is the first offender. I am not inclined to release him by giving the benefit of probation as the reckless driving is rampant on the highways causing serious accidents. However, taking into consideration the punishment provided for the said offence, I take the lenient view in the matter and sentence the respondent to pay a fine of Rs.500/- only. In default of payment of fine, the respondent shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. The fine amount be deposited in the learned trial court within a period of one month from today, failing which the learned trial court will take appropriate steps for the compliance of the order of sentence. Matter stands disposed of. Send down the records. November 20, 2008. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.