State of Himachal Pradesh vs Jitender Kumar

Surinder Singh, J.—The learned trial Court acquitted the Respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 379, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, registered in terms of FIR No. 137/1997, in Police Station Balh, on the ground that the accident in question had taken place while the deceased alongwith her cow was crossing the road and not as alleged by the prosecution, thus the defence version stands probablised.

Shri A.K. Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General for the State, forcefully argued that the factum of striking the Van firstly with the cow, thereafter with the deceased stands proved, which gives a rise to conclude the rash and negligent driving of the Van in question by the Respondent.

I have examined the above arguments. The accident in question had taken place on the national highway in the front of the house of the deceased, where Chaff was lying on the left side of the road. According to PW1 Puran Chand, the deceased was collecting the Chaff and her cow was at a distance. The van in question came from the side of Sunder Nagar, hit the cow, thereafter struck against the deceased. She sustained the serious injuries and later succumbed to it. However, pertinently, he admitted in cross-examination that the accident would not have taken place, had the Van not hit the cow and further according to him, the Respondent was not responsible for the accident, as the vehicle in question was in normal speed.

The above version apart, PW2 Ramesh Chand has probablised the defence. He admitted that the Van was at its own side and in a normal speed. Deceased alongwith cow suddenly crossed the road and darted against the Van. The Van hit cow and the driver lost control. He also stated that the accident did not take place, due to the fault of the Respondent.

Statements of P Ws 1 and 2 both are contradictory to each other, but it is important to note that in their opinion, it was not the Respondent who could be blamed for the accident in question.

It is a settled law that the prosecution is obliged to prove that the accident in question took place on account of the rash or negligent driving of the Respondent, but to conclude that it was the Respondent who was rash and negligent from the above evidence, cannot be said to have been established.

When the pedestrian tries to suddenly cross the road and is hit by the vehicle without the driver becoming aware of it, there would be injustice for holding him guilty for the offence charged. The learned trial Court took the notice of the above facts and rightly applied the law. Therefore, in my considered opinion, no interference in the acquittal of the Respondent is called for. Appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

The Respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him at any time during the proceedings of this case.

Send down the records.