State of Himachal Pradesh vs Onkar Chand

Surinder Singh, J.—The State has challenged the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court in Case No. 62/2 of 2006, on 18.8.2010, for the offences punishable under Sections 279, and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Briefly the prosecution case can be stated thus. On 19.6.2006, at about 7.45 a.m., PW5 Kumari Kiran was going to her School alongwith her younger sister Jyoti, aged about 5 years through shop of PW15 Vijay Kumar, abutting to the National Highway No. 88. When she was in the process of crossing the road, Bus bearing registration No. HP-23-2536 being allegedly driven by the Respondent rashly and negligently, knocked her down. Jyoti died on the spot. Matter was reported to the police in terms of FIR No. 81 of 2006.

Postmortem of the dead-body was got conducted. Police prepared the site plan of the alleged accident, took the photographs and after recording the statements of the witnesses, challan was finalized and presented in the court for the trial of the Respondent. At the end of trial, Respondent was acquitted, on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the rash and negligent act of driving by the Respondent.

Heard and gone through the evidence on record.

PW5 Kumari Kiran (8 years) was accompanying the deceased sister at the relevant time. She stated that while on their way to school, when they reached near the shop of Vijay Kumar (PW15), she was holding the hand of her younger sister. They were about to cross the road, the hand of her sister got separated - 3 and she ran towards the hand-pump. There was a tempo-vehicle standing in front of the shop of Vijay Kumar. Suddenly, her sister Jyoti tried in the process of crossing the Highway while running was hit by a running bus. This fact has been corroborated by PW14 Narain Dass, who claimed himself to have witnessed the accident first of all. He admitted that both the girls came from behind the tempo-vehicle for crossing the road and the deceased girl in that process while running dashed against the bus. He further admitted that after the accident, PW15 Vijay Kumar the owner of the tempo vehicle removed it from the place and parked it at a distance.

PW15 Vijay Kumar also stated that the accident had taken place when the deceased had tried to cross the road, but for obvious reasons denied that at the relevant time, his tempo was parked in front of his shop. He was also confronted with his statement on the portion ''A'' to ''A'' Ext.DX to this effect. He stands contradicted by his statement on this score, whereas, other witnesses have probablised the version of the defense that the deceased Jyoti - 4 suddenly dashed against the bus, which resulted into the accident in question.

It is not the case of the prosecution that the driver of the bus was able to see the deceased while crossing the road, rather it has come in evidence that the deceased girl suddenly came in contact with the bus and was run over under rear tyre which fact is clear from photograph Ext.PW4/A. If a person suddenly crossing the road, the bus driver, however, slowly he may be driving his vehicle, may not be in a position to save the accident in such a situation. Therefore, it will not be possible to hold that the bus driver was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle in question.

Since the case of the prosecution falls short of requisite proof, therefore, the acquittal of the Respondent cannot be interfered with, as such, the appeal is dismissed being without any merit.

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.