IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No.504 of 2002 Date of decision : April 27, 2009 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Madan Singh and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Ramesh Thakur Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge( Oral ) State has appealed against the judgment of trial Magistrate, whereby respondents Madan Singh and Jagdish Chand, who were tried for offences, punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 180 and 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, have been acquitted. 2. Facts relevant for the disposal of the appeal may be noticed. Respondent Jagdish Chand was employed as driver of a private bus bearing Registration No.HP-07-3000. On 18th November, 2000, the bus left Koti Dhaman for Dadahu. On the way, respondent Jagdish Chand allegedly allowed respondent Madan Singh, who did not possess a licence to drive bus, though he did possess a licence to drive heavy goods vehicle, to drive the bus. Respondent Madan Singh drove the bus in so Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… rash or negligent a manner as to endanger human life or personal safety of others, as a result of which he lost control over the bus, at a place called Kharad, while negotiating a curve. The bus rolled down the road. Thirteen of the passengers on board the bus died, while several others received injuries, both simple and grievous. Matter was reported to the police. After investigation, both the respondents were challaned. 3. Respondents denied that the bus was being driven by respondent Madan Singh, at the site of the accident. It was claimed that respondent Jagdish Chand himself was in driver’s seat, when the accident took place. It was pleaded that the cause of the accident was sudden breaking of spring leaves of the bus, as a result of which brake system failed and the bus went out of control. 4. Prosecution examined five persons to prove the accusation that the bus was being driven by respondent Madan Singh and also in a rash or negligent manner. Three of these five witnesses, namely Praveen Prasher (PW-1), Narain Singh (PW-6) and Mohan Singh (PW-9), were allegedly travelling by the bus, in question, while PW-10 Jeet Singh and PW-13 Ramesh Kumar allegedly saw the accident taking place. None of these five witnesses, except PW-1 Praveen Prasher, stated that the bus was being driven by respondent Madan Singh. Even PW-1 Praveen Prasher did not name respondent Madan Singh as the driver of the bus, initially. It was only after he was declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution, …3… with the leave of the Court, that he did state so. Other four witnesses either stated that they did not know who was in driver’s seat, when the accident took place or that respondent Madan Singh was not driving the bus. 5. Prosecution examined one more witness, namely Mittar Singh, attorney of the owner of the bus, who very categorically stated that the bus was being driven by respondent Jagdish Chand. Prosecution did not challenge the testimony of the witness, as it did not seek the leave of the Court to cross-examine him. That means the testimony of the witness that the bus was being driven by respondent Jagdish Chand is acceptable to the prosecution. Respondent Jagdish Chand, in his statement, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, very categorically stated that it was he who was driving the bus, when the accident took place. 6. Coming to the accusation that the bus was being driven in a rash or negligent manner, suffice it to say that none of the witnesses has stated that the bus was being driven rashly or negligently. Though one or two witnesses did state that it was being driven fast, they did not say that it was being driven very fast. All the three passenger-witnesses, named above, admitted that before the bus rolled down, they heard a loud sound of breaking of some part of the bus and then the bus sprang and went off the road. Report of mechanical examination of the bus shows that spring leaves of the bus were broken. This report fits into the defence plea that the …4… spring leaves of the bus gave way and because of the same brake system became free and the bus went out of control. The above discussion shows that it is quite doubtful that the bus was being driven by respondent Madan Singh or that it was being driven in a rash or negligent manner, at the time when the accident took place. Therefore, I do not consider it to be a fit case for interference with the judgment of acquittal. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. April 27, 2009(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J