IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. A. No. 396 of 2002 Decided on: 24.3.2009 State of H.P. ..…Appellant Versus Rupinder Singh ..…Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Appellant : Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. A.G. with Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant A.G. For Respondent : Ms. Sunita Sharma, Advocate. Surjit Singh,J. (Oral) This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment of Sessions Court, whereby appeal filed by the respondent Rupinder Singh against his conviction and sentence for offences, under Section 279, 337 and 338 IPC, ordered by the trial Magistrate, has been accepted and he has been acquitted. 2. Prosecution case, as per evidence adduced during trial, may be stated thus. Respondent was engaged as driver on Bus No. HP-17-7486 in the month of April, 2000. On 17.4.2000, the bus started from Kala Amb for Nahan. Around 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3.15 P.M., when it reached about 100 yards beyond village Mogi Nand, it hit a hillock and turned turtle. Some of the passengers on board of the bus sustained injuries, both simple and grievous. Matter was reported to the police and during the course of investigation it was found that the accident took place because of the excessive speed of the bus, at the site of the accident. So, the respondent was challaned. 3. Prosecution examined a number of passengers, who sustained injuries in the accident, besides examining a police Constable who conducted the mechanical test of the bus. The passengers testified that accident had taken place because of excessive speed of the bus. Mechanic, namely PW11 C. Deep Singh examined by the prosecution, testified that he did not find any mechanical defect in the bus, though, he did state that he had not checked the air pressure to ascertain whether the pressure was enough for effective application of the brakes and that he also did not make any report whether the main patta of the bus on the front side was intact. Respondent examined a mechanic namely Nittu Mistri DW1, who claimed to have repaired the bus after the accident. The witness stated that main patta of the bus was found broken and he had repaired it. 4. Trial Court convicted and sentenced the respondent, as aforesaid, believing the version of the passengers and the testimony of PW11 C. Deep Singh (Mechanic). Learned Sessions Judge has believed the defence version that the accident took place because of sudden development of mechanical defect in the bus which neutralized the brake system. 3 5. I have heard the learned Deputy Advocate General as also the counsel representing the respondent and gone through the record. Suggestions were put to all the passengers examined by the prosecution that the bus developed a mechanical defect all of a sudden and because of that the brakes did not work and the driver was left with no alternative but to take the bus towards the hillock to bring it to an halt and to avoid its falling into the khud, which was ahead of the site of the accident. View taken by the learned Sessions Judge cannot be said to be perverse for the reasons which are given in the following pargraphs. 6. It has been testified by PW10 Yoginder Singh, one of the passengers that the bus had stopped at Mogi Nand to enable some of the passengers to alight from it. In the cross examination the witness stated that the site of the accident is about 100 yards from Mogi Nand bus stop where the bus had stopped. PW11 C. Deep Singh, who conducted the mechanical test and claims to be a qualified Motor Mechanic stated in the cross examination that if a bus, loaded with passengers, is moved from stationary position, it cannot gain the speed of more than 10 K.M. per hour upto a distance of 100 meters. If the statements of PW10 Yoginder Singh and PW11 Deep Singh are read together that would mean that the speed of the bus could not have been more than 10 to 15 K.M. per hour when the accident took place. This fact contradicts the testimony of the bus passengers that the bus was being driven very fast and in a rash manner and because of that the driver could not control it. 4 7. The site plan Ext.PW9/A also suggests that the brake system of the bus had failed at the site of the accident. There is a note recorded by the investigating officer that there were no marks of application of brakes at the site of the accident and that the bus had turned turtle after ascending a small hillock on the left hand side of the driver. Absence of tyre marks on the road means that the brakes did not work. Had the brakes been in working order, the respondent was supposed to have applied the same, at least when the bus was getting out of control. 8. It has been admitted by PW11 Deep Singh Mechanic that when the main patta of a vehicle gets broken, the brakes do not work. 9. In view of the above stated position, it cannot be said that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is not possible from the evidence on record. Hence, this in my considered view is not a fit case for interference with the judgment of acquittal. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. (Surjit Singh),J. March 24, 2009 (vs)