State of H.P. vs Suresh Kumar and Another

Dev Darshan Sud, J.—The State is aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Nahan. The Respondents were charged for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case is that Suresh KumarRespondent No. 1 was driver of bus No. HP-34-0810 and Rajesh Kumar-Respondent No. 2 was its Conductor. This bus was travelling from Manali to Dehradun. On 8.5.2002 at around 8.15 a.m when this bus was passing through Balmiki Basti, Nahan, another bus of Himachal Road Transport Corporation bearing No. HP-12-4040 came from the opposite direction and since the road was very narrow the offending vehicle, reversed in order to allow this bus to pass. It is this time that the incident is alleged to have occurred when Soma Devi deceased was hit by this bus while it was reversing.

The case of the prosecution is that both Respondents-accused did not display enough care and caution while reversing the bus to ascertain as to whether there was somebody standing behind it or that some persons would sustain injury. Soma Devi sustained injuries as a result of the accident and was rushed to the hospital but died at P.G.I. Chandigarh where she was referred to.

On the testimony of the witnesses, the learned trial Court holds that no offence under Sections 304A has been made out.

Learned Additional Advocate General urges that the testimony of the witnesses has been misread by the learned trial Court. PW1 Smt. Aruna Rani is the daughter-in-law of deceased Smt. Soma Devi, who was accompanying her. According to her, both she and her deceased mother-in-law were walking towards the temple when the deceased was hit by this bus. When she was in the witness box, she stated that she could not recognize the driver and conductor of the bus. She was declared hostile. In cross-examination, though she again admits that it was both the Respondents who were in the bus, but another important admission which she makes is that she was walking ahead of her mother-in-law. If that be so, it is not understood as to how the bus hit only the mother-in-law and not her as she was in front of her on a road which is admittedly very narrow.

PW2 Raj Kumar is a witness who took the injured to the hospital after the alleged incident. He had rushed to the spot after he heard PW1 screaming for help etc. In his cross-examination, it is clear that he does not know how the accident took place. PW12 Sanjay Kumar is the grand son of the deceased but he also cannot say anything about the accident.

Considering the totality of this evidence, as urged by the learned Additional Advocate General, I cannot find anything in the statement of the witness which concludes negligence driving on the part of the Respondents.

At this juncture, the evidence of PW15 Prem Dutt, who was the driver of the other bus for which the Respondents had reversed their bus in order to give pass to H.R.T.C. bus may be considered. He has categorically stated in his statement that he did not see anybody on the road and the accident did not take place because of the rash and negligent driving of the Respondents. He says that the deceased came out from her house suddenly slipped and fell down.

Looking to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I cannot persuade myself that the Respondents are guilty for the offences as alleged. Even if the Statement of PW15 Prem Dutt is to be discarded, I do not find any other evidence of the prosecution consisting of the witnesses noticed supra in any manner implicates the Respondents. The statement of PW1 Smt. Aruna Rani is absolutely clear that she was walking ahead of the deceased. It is also in evidence that the road is very narrow. There is, thus, no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the Respondent shall stand discharged.