IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. A. No. 359 of 2003 Date of decision: 6. 5. 2010 State of H.P. ….Appellant Versus Sita Ram ……Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Appellant: Mr. Anshul Bansal, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. R.K. Gautam, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Archna Dutt, Advocate. Surinder Singh J. (Oral) Respondent was acquitted by the learned trial Court in Criminal case No. 54/2 of 2002 under Section 279, 337 Indian Penal Code registered vide FIR No. 309/2001. 2. State felt aggrieved by the impugned judgment as such filed the instant appeal. 3. Heard and gone through the record. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes - 2 - 4. In short, prosecution case can be stated thus. On 6.11.2001 at about 9.20 p.m. the Hon’ble Chief Minister was being escorted by PW7 S.I. Gian Chand in a separate vehicle which was ahead of the vehicle of the Hon’ble Chief Minister. PW1 Bhup Ram, Traffic Constable was the rider of motor cycle and ASI Ram Rattan (PW4) was on the pillion. They went ahead of the motorcade. When they reached near Winter Field (bus stand) near the place where the road from Army Command merges into the main Road, respondent with his Maruti Car bearing No. HP-03A-0459 suddenly appeared and hit the police motor-cycle in a high speed resulting into the injuries to Motor Cyclist and also the pillion rider. 5. S.I. Gian Chand got down from the escort vehicle, asked about the identity of the respondent and informed the police. Injured were taken to Rippon Hospital. 6. PW6 S.I. Gulshan Negi investigated the case. She is stated to have prepared the site plan of the place of the alleged accident and also took into possession driving license of the respondent. The offending vehicle was taken into possession and - 3 - was got mechanically examined by PW3 H.C. Gian Chand. The report is Ext. PW3/A. 7. On completing the investigation, challan was presented in the court for the trial of the respondent. 8. Respondent abjured the guilt and claimed trial. 9. To prove its case, prosecution examined its witnesses and respondent was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. His case was denial simplicitor. According to him, motor cycle had skidded on the road resulting into injuries to him and the pillion rider. He did not lead any evidence in defence. 10. At the end of the trial, respondent was acquitted on the ground that independent witness PW2 Atul Sood did not support the case of the prosecution and further that PW3 H.C. Gian Chand had only mechanically examined the Maruti car and not the motor cycle and further that at the place of accident, construction work was going on as testified by PW4 ASI Ram Rattan, making the place slippery. The identity of the accused was not established. Thus, story of the respondent was - 4 - probable that the motor cyclist had a skid on the road. 11. In the instant case, respondent although stand identified, his driving license was taken into possession by the Investigating Officer but PW1 stated that the accident was attributed to the high speed of the car being driven by the respondent. Neither he nor any other witness testified that respondent was driving the said vehicle rashly or negligently. It is well established that speed of the vehicle is not a criteria, even to infer rash and negligent driving. 12. Confronted with the above position, Mr. J.S. Rana Assistant Advocate General, argued that when respondent was approaching the main road, it was for him to take due care and caution to be careful and avert accident and that even the high speed in such a situation is a negligent act which falls within the ambit of the offence charged. 13. I have examined this argument also. It looks attractive but not convincing, more specifically in the light of the site plan which is alleged to have been prepared by the Investigating Officer. It neither bears the date nor his signatures. - 5 - The place of accident is not at the place where the road emerges but it is at a place somewhat ahead. The car in question had already come to its own left side and there was no reason to the motor cyclist to leave his own side and come to the side of Maruti car. No photographs were taken. It is not known when the site plan was prepared. 14. Against the aforesaid background, especially when the accident was not proved to be the result of rash or negligent act of driving by the respondent, the acquittal of the respondent cannot be interfered with. Accordingly appeal is devoid of any merit, hence dismissed. May 6, 2010 (Surinder Singh),J (cm)