State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Ranbir Singh
2023 Latest Caselaw 5480 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. Appeal No.255 of 2010 Decided on: 10th May, 2023

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- State of Himachal Pradesh .....Appellant

.

                                                 Versus





    Ranbir Singh                                                  .....Respondents

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting? 1

For the Appellant: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Mr. Rupinder

Singh Thakur and Mr. Navlesh Verma, Additional Advocates General with Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.

For the Respondent: Mr. Dinesh Bhanot, Advocate

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

State is in appeal against the judgment dated

28.1.2010 passed by the learned Trial Court, whereby the

respondent has been acquitted from the accusation under

Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. FIR No. 41 of 2006 was registered against the

respondent on 25.03.2006 at Police Station Sujanpur, District

Hamirpur, H.P. under Sections 279, 337, and 338 of the

Indian Penal Code. The allegations against the respondent

were that he was driving a bus of Haryana Roadways bearing

No. HR-55B-4350 on a public way in a rash and negligent

Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order?

manner so as to endanger the life and safety of others. On

account of his rash and negligent driving, the bus driven by

him dashed against an HRTC bus bearing No. HP-20A-2913,

causing injuries to S/Sh. Sanjeev and Gajraj. On finding a

.

prima facie case against the respondent, notice of accusation

was put to him under the aforesaid sections, to which, he

pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution

examined seventeen witnesses in all. Statement of respondent-

accused under Section 313 Cr.PC was recorded, wherein he

claimed innocence. After appreciating evidence led by the

parties, learned Trial Court acquitted the accused on

28.01.2010.

3. I have heard learned Additional Advocate General

for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent and also

considered the relevant record.

4. In my considered view, no case for interference

with the impugned judgment is called for. This is for the

following reasons:-

4(i). The complainant (Ashok Kumar) stepped into the

witness box as PW-1. He stated that he was conductor in the

HRTC bus that was dashed against by the bus driven by the

respondent. In his cross-examination, he admitted that road

was very narrow at the spot. That the accused had blown

horn while descending towards the spot, whereas the HRTC

bus was on the ascent.

4(ii). PW-2 Sanjeev Kumar was the driver of HRTC bus. He

.

also stated that there was a curve at the spot and the road

was very narrow. Contrary to the statement of PW-1, this

witness denied blowing of any horn by the present

respondent(accused). However, PW-2 very categorically and

unambiguously admitted that the accident was caused on

account of narrow curve on the spot.

4(iii). The statement of PW-2 has also been corroborated

by one Sh. Neeraj Dhiman, who stepped into the witness box

as PW-4. He stated that on 25.3.2006, he was driving the

tractor at the spot. He had seen the spot where the two buses

collided with each other. He admitted that the accident had

occurred at the curve on the spot. Existence of blind curve at

the spot in question has also been admitted by PW-8 Kulwant

Singh, the photographer.

5. In view of the statements of the material

prosecution witnesses about the spot in question being very

narrow and that the accident in question had occurred

because of narrow passage and also taking into consideration

the material contradiction in the statements of other

witnesses, the cause of the accident cannot be attributed to

the respondent-accused. Therefore, I do not find any ground to

interfere with the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court,

acquitting the respondent.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Pending

.

miscellaneous, application, if any also stand disposed of.

                                            Jyotsna Rewal Dua
    May 10th, 2023                                Judge
        tarun




                   r          to