AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Surinder Singh, J.—The State has challenged the acquittal of the respondents passed by the learned trial Court in criminal case No. 4/2 of 2002 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 Indian Penal Code. Heard and gone through the record.
From the evidence, it transpires that on 27.5.2002 accused Pawan Kumar was driving bus No. HP-17-5786 and the co-accused Vimal Kumar was the driver of truck No. HRX-5918. The bus was going from Nahan to Kala-Amb and the truck was coming from the opposite side. It is alleged that drivers of both the vehicles were driving their respective vehicles rashly and negligently. Around 12.30 p.m. when it reached near ''Dosarka'' between Kala-Amb and Nahan, the sides of both the vehicles come in contact resulting into simple injuries to bus driver Pawan Kumar.
Police was informed. It reached the spot. Ruka was sent for registration of the case against the drivers of both the vehicles. The site-plan was prepared. Police also took the photographs of both the vehicles and got the vehicles mechanically examined.
After completing investigation, police presented the challan against the respondents for their trial. At the end of the trial, they were acquitted on the ground that the photographs were not admissible in evidence and there was no other clinching evidence to conclude rash or negligent driving by either of them.
PW1 HC Choli Ram is the photographer. He stated that though he took the photographs but did not develop it. These were sent to Chandigarh. The person developing the photographs from negative was not examined.
PW2 Sushil Kumar was running a tea-stall near ''Dosarka''. He was cited as an eye witness to prove the case but according to him he did not know who was responsible and at fault for causing the said accident. Further, according to him, he did not see any of the respondents driving the vehicles involved in the accident, at that time.
PW3 Balbir Singh proved the report Ext. PW3/A. PW4 constable Subhash Chand had taken the ruka from the spot for registration of the case. In cross-examination he stated, when he reached the spot, he saw the conductor of the bus present on the spot. He did not make any reference regarding presence of any of the drivers of the offending vehicles.
PW5 Nasir Mohd. is a witness of the taking into possession the documents of bus whereas PW6 is a motor mechanic who has given the mechanical report.
PW9 is SI Dhan Singh. He stated that at the point of accident, there was a slight curve.
PW10 Dr. Kamlesh Pandey examined the bus driver Pawan Kumar who sustained as much as four simple injuries on his person.
In their statements u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, both the respondents have denied the rash or negligent driving.
On the examination of the photographs and site plan, it appears that road on both sides of the vehicles was between 4 feet to 4 1/2 feet pucca portion. The accident could have been averted had the drivers of the both the vehicles taken a bit of care while negotiating ''S'' type curve. Since it is a criminal case, the accused persons cannot be convicted on the basis of presumption. It may be a case of civil liability. To prove the criminal charge, prosecution is obliged to lead cogent and convincing evidence with respect to the rash or negligent driving by any of the respondents or both of them which caused the accident, which is lacking in the present case. On the basis of the photographs itself or the spot map, criminal liability cannot be fastened upon the respondents by raising presumption.
For the reasons aforesaid, the acquittal of the respondents cannot be interfered with as it is borne out from the evidence on record. The appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them at any stage during the proceedings of this case.