IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. 289 of 2003 Date of Decision: 12th July, 2010 __________________________________________________________ State of H.P. ….Petitioner. Versus Arun Kumar ….Respondent. ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No __________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Ms. Ruma Kaushik Additional Advocate General. For the Respondent: Shri Navlesh Verma, Advocate. __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J (oral). The State is aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal passed against the respondent who was driving the bus purportedly involved in the accident causing injuries to PW1 Kamlender Singh. He was charged for commission of offences under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code causing injuries to the complainant by rash or negligent driving. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.5.2002 around 9.20 a.m., the respondent was driving bus No. HP-16-3604 from Chamba to Dehradun, which, according to the prosecution, while giving 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 pass to a private bus, struck against the complainant, who was taken to the hospital by the driver himself. He was examined by PW5 Dr. R.K. Mangla who issued the Medico Legal Certificate Ext.PW5/A showing that injuries were simple in nature. There was one injury on head which was X- rayed at District Hospital, Nahan. In his cross examination, the Dr. R.K. Mangla admitted that injuries were simple in nature and that if a person is hit by fast moving vehicle, then the injuries would be more serious. He also states that such injuries can be caused by fall on a hard surface. Adverting to the prosecution evidence, it has been proved on record by injured Kamlender Singh and Geeta Thakur PW4 that they were walking on the roadside when the accident took place. 3. On the totality of the facts brought on record, the learned Court holds that there was no evidence on record that the bus was being driven in rash or negligent manner. It is also admitted by them that the road consisted of metalled portion and unmetalled portion, where they were walking. It is not established by the prosecution that the bus infact was driven on the unmetalled portion of the road. The court also concludes, after analyzing the evidence on record that it may be possible that students, who were walking on the road together with complainant and Geeta Thakur, were gossiping with each other without paying attention to the traffic and may be it was because of that they got frightened and fell down on the road. 4. The primary factor which has to be established on record is whether the respondent was driving the bus in a rash or negligent manner. I do not find from the photographs Ext.PX, Ext.PY and Ext.PZ that accident could be caused in the manner as alleged. Since the road was wide enough. It is quite clear that no rashness or negligence has 3 been proved on record of the case. One more factor requires to be noticed, which is that the driver of the bus who had taken the complainant to the hospital for treatment. 5. I do not find that the trial Court has erred in reaching the conclusion that no offence under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. In these circumstances, the appeal is dismissed. Bail bond furnished by the accused are discharged. July 12, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud) (ms) Judge