Surinder Singh, J.@mdashRespondent was acquitted by the learned trial Court in Criminal case No. 54/2 of 2002 u/s 279, 337 Indian Penal
Code registered vide FIR No. 309/2001.
2. State felt aggrieved by the impugned judgment as such filed the instant appeal.
3. Heard and gone through the record.
4. In short, prosecution case can be stated thus. On 6.11.2001 at about 9.20 p.m. the Hon''ble Chief Minister was being escorted by PW-7 S.I.
Gian Chand in a separate vehicle which was ahead of the vehicle of the Hon''ble Chief Minister. PW-1 Bhup Ram, Traffic Constable was the rider
of motor cycle and ASI Ram Rattan (PW-4) was on the pillion. They went ahead of the motorcade. When they reached near Winter Field (bus
stand) near the place where the road from Army Command merges into the main Road, Respondent with his Maruti Car bearing No. HP-03A-
0459 suddenly appeared and hit the police motor-cycle in a high speed resulting into the injuries to Motor Cyclist and also the pillion rider.
5. S.I. Gian Chand got down from the escort vehicle, asked about the identity of the Respondent and informed the police. Injured were taken to
Rippon Hospital.
6. PW-6 S.I. Gulshan Negi investigated the case. She is stated to have prepared the site plan of the place of the alleged accident and also took
into possession driving license of the Respondent. The offending vehicle was taken into possession and was got mechanically examined by PW-3
H.C. Gian Chand. The report is Ext. PW-3/A.
7. On completing the investigation, challan was presented in the court for the trial of the Respondent.
8. Respondent abjured the guilt and claimed trial.
9. To prove its case, prosecution examined its witnesses and Respondent was also examined u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. His case
was denial simplicitor. According to him, motor cycle had skidded on the road resulting into injuries to him and the pillion rider. He did not lead
any evidence in defence.
10. At the end of the trial, Respondent was acquitted on the ground that independent witness PW-2 Atul Sood did not support the case of the
prosecution and further that PW-3 H.C. Gian Chand had only mechanically examined the Maruti car and not the motor cycle and further that at the
place of accident, construction work was going on as testified by PW-4 ASI Ram Rattan, making the place slippery. The identity of the accused
was not established. Thus, story of the Respondent was probable that the motor cyclist had a skid on the road.
11. In the instant case, Respondent although stand identified, his driving license was taken into possession by the Investigating Officer but PW1
stated that the accident was attributed to the high speed of the car being driven by the Respondent. Neither he nor any other witness testified that
Respondent was driving the said vehicle rashly or negligently. It is well established that speed of the vehicle is not a criteria, even to infer rash and
negligent driving.
12. Confronted with the above position, Mr. J.S. Rana Assistant Advocate General, argued that when Respondent was approaching the main
road, it was for him to take due care and caution to be careful and avert accident and that even the high speed in such a situation is a negligent act
which falls within the ambit of the offence charged.
13. I have examined this argument also. It looks attractive but not convincing, more specifically in the light of the site plan which is alleged to have
been prepared by the Investigating Officer. It neither bears the date nor his signatures. The place of accident is not at the place where the road
emerges but it is at a place somewhat ahead. The car in question had already come to its own left side and there was no reason to the motor cyclist
to leave his own side and come to the side of Maruti car. No photographs were taken. It is not known when the site plan was prepared.
14. Against the aforesaid background, especially when the accident was not proved to be the result of rash or negligent act of driving by the
Respondent, the acquittal of the Respondent cannot be interfered with.
Accordingly appeal is devoid of any merit, hence dismissed.