HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.A. No. : 576 of 2003 Decided on: 13.9.2010 State of H.P. ……… Appellant. Versus Madan Lal ………Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellant: Mr.J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr.Sunil Chaudhary, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J.(Oral): This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Manali, District Kullu, H.P., dated 5.8.2003, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the notice of accusations put to him for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 6.1.1999, ASI Parma Nand was on patrol duty and he observed that a bus bearing No.HP-01-1641, allegedly being driven by the respondent, had met with an accident and 21 occupants of the said bus had sustained injuries and one Smt.Sangma Dolma had died. The injured had been referred to Zonal Hospital, Manali for treatment. He sent a report to ___________________________________________ Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - the Police Station on the basis of which, the case was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed before the learned trial Court and the respondent was tried for the offences, as detailed above, leading to his acquittal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 4. On appraisal of the evidence led by the prosecution, it is clear that the case had not been registered on the basis of the complaint made by any of the injured, though there were 21 occupants in the vehicle, who had sustained injuries. They had been sent to the hospital for treatment and the Investigating Officer could have recorded the statement of any of the occupants which could have proved that the vehicle was being driven rashly or negligently. However, during the investigation of the case, the Investigating Officer associated three occupants of the bus, namely, PW-5 Ranbir Singh, PW-7 Ms.Dolma and PW-8 Alexander Karbolo to prove their case. The statements of these three witnesses, apart from the statement of the Investigating Officer, can be said to be most material. 5. PW-5 Ranbir Singh has stated that he was one of the occupants of the bus in which there were 25/26 passengers. He stated that the bus was going on a descend and it was going at a normal speed. One bus came from the other side and the driver of the bus could not control the vehicle and it fell down the road. He also sustained injuries. He did not state anything in his statement that the vehicle was being driven rashly or negligently by the respondent or at - 3 - what speed the vehicle was being driven at the relevant time. In cross examination, he stated that the bus was on descend and there is a curve near the place of accident. He denied the suggestion that the accused was driving the bus rashly or negligently, when he was cross examined by the learned Public prosecutor after being declared as hostile. In cross examination by the counsel for the respondent, he admitted that the bus was going at a normal speed. 6. PW-7 Dolma, one of the occupants, has stated that there were 22 passengers in the bus. When the bus reached near Dolu Nallah, it fell down from the road after taking three turns. She stated that the driver was driving the vehicle at a fast speed and roughly. She has not stated as to what was the speed of the vehicle at the time of accident. She stated that the police had enquired from her and she had stated therein also that the bus was being driven at a fast speed and roughly, though she was not confronted with her statement recorded by the police under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., if there was any contradiction. She admitted that the weather was bad on that day and it was raining heavily. She also admitted that the bus was going on a descend and there was a small curve near the place of accident. She admitted that a bus came from other side from Kullu at the time of accident, but denied her knowledge in case the said bus was going at a fast speed. She also denied her knowledge if the skid marks were there at the spot. She denied that the bus was not going at a fast speed or the accident had not taken place due to no negligence of the - 4 - respondent. She stated that she does not know the driving but knows the difference about slow speed and fast speed. 7. PW-8 Alexpander Karbolo, another occupant of the bus, has stated that the bus, when it reached at 5.00 p.m. near Dolu Nallah and due to fast speed and rough driving, it went down and he suffered injuries. In cross examination also he did not state about the speed of the vehicle at the relevant time or that it was being driven negligently or as to what was the cause of the accident at the relevant time. The Investigating Officer PW-10 ASI Parma Nand had prepared the spot map etc. but there is nothing in his statement which could show that there were any marks of applying the brakes at the place of accident. 8. To prove the rash or negligent driving of a driver, it is not necessary that it should be proved that he was driving the vehicle or one person has died. The mere fact that one person had died and others suffered injuries is not sufficient to prove the rash or negligent driving of a driver in a criminal trial. However, in a compensation case, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur can be applied but it cannot be applied to a criminal case. The persecution had examined three witnesses, but they had failed to prove as to what was the cause of accident, what was the speed of the vehicle at the time of accident and no inference can be drawn from such vague evidence that the respondent was driving the vehicle rashly or negligently. Therefore, the final conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court on the basis of such vague evidence cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court. - 5 - 5. In view of the above discussion, I hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondent shall stand discharged. September 13, 2010. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge