IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No.343 of 2003. Date of Decision: 22.7.2010. _______________________________________________ State of H.P. ….Appellant. Versus. Raj Singh and another. ….Respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General. For Respondents. : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). 1. The State is aggrieved by the judgment passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class (1), Dharmshala acquitting the respondents for offences under Sections 279, 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 13.8.2002 at around 9.15 a.m., respondent-Raj Singh was driving bus No. HP-37-7023 and respondent-Dinesh Kumar was its conductor. The bus was going towards Dharamshala. The case pleaded is that the bus was being driven in a rash Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 and negligent manner as a result of which Anil Kumar, who was standing at the rear door of the bus, fell down at the time when the bus was negotiating a curve. This accident resulted in the death of Anil Kumar. The prosecution alleges that had it not been for the rash and negligent driving of the respondent- Raj Singh, this accident would not have occurred. 3. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses. On the evidence on record, the learned trial Court acquitted both the respondents holding that the evidence on record did not establish rash or negligent driving. 4. The crucial question for examination in this case is as to whether respondent-Raj Singh was driving the bus in a rash or negligent manner and respondent No.2 Dinesh Kumar was in dereliction of the duty did in not warning the driver that Anil Kumar had fallen down from the bus. 5. In order to arrive at this conclusion, the learned trial Court holds that there are a number of contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution. PW8 Vijay Kumar stated on oath that when he was in the bus, one boy was sitting near the rear door of the bus and when it reached near ‘Bedi Travel’s House’, the boy fell down. But then he proceeded to say that he cannot say who was to blame for the accident. He was declared hostile but nothing material has been elicited from his cross-examination though the learned Additional Advocate General contends that the cross- 3 examination consistently supports the case of rash and negligent driving. I cannot subscribe to this view. I am fortified in taking this view from the fact that PW2 Harnam Singh admits in his cross-examination that the deceased was hanging with the rear ‘window’ of the bus. Surely, this is no where to travel. Putting your own life in jeopardy in abnormal circumstances and then expecting the driver to take care and caution which no ordinary individual can take, in the circumstance is not the requirement of criminal law. 6. This part of the evidence also contradicts the testimony of PW1 Ranvir Singh. I have also noticed from the evidence that the question of rash and negligent driving the bus is not established. In these circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the learned trial Court which is affirmed. 7. I need to notice one more submission made by the learned Additional Advocate General that the roads and vehicles have become death traps for ordinary citizens. She submits that a strict view of the offence should and ought to be taken and that the offenders should not be allowed to go scot-free. 8. On the first aspect of the case, there can be no dispute. However, it has also been established as a fact. When there are two views possible from the evidence on record, the law is that the view favouring should be preferred. 4 9. In this case what I find is that the deceased was himself hanging out from the rear door and had contributed to his own death. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the respondents are discharged. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. July 22,2010 (R)