JUDGMENT
M.R. Verma, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6-7-1996 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, whereby the accused-respondent (here in after referred to as the ‘accused’) has been acquitted of the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 18-11-1992 at about 2.55 p.m. PW-10 Meera Devi along with her mother Smt. Satya Devi (since deceased) had gone to bus stand Shimla for boarding a bus. At that time, Smt. Satya Devi had gone to purchase biscuits from a shop at the bus stand. When she was returning therefrom towards PW 10 Meera Devi bus No. HP-33-0160 being driven by the accused came from behind at a high speed and was driven in a negligent manner and struck against Satya Devi who succumbed to the injuries sustained by her. On a statement made by PW 10, Meera Devi under Section 154, Cr.P.C. Ex. PW9/A an FIR under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A, IPC, Ex.-PW9/B was recorded in Police Station Sadar, Shimla. After getting post-mortem of dead body of Satya Devi conducted, the police obtained the post-mortem report Ex. PA and as per opinion given therein Smt. Satya Devi died due to haemorrhagic shock as a result of ante-mortem injuries to vital organs. On completion of the investigation and being satisfied of the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A, I.P.C. by the accused, the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned Police Station, submitted a charge-sheet against him.
3. The accused was tried by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla for the accusations under Sections 279 and 304-A, I.P.C.
4. To prove the accusations against the accused, prosecution examined ten witnesses.
5. The accused in his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. denied the incriminating evidence put to him and claimed to be innocent. Accused, however, did not lead any evidence.
5A. Finally the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the accused by the impugned judgment. Hence the present appeal.
6. I have heard the learned Additional Advocate General for the State and the learned counsel for the accused and have gone through the records. There is no dispute that Smt. Satya Devi has died and is no more in the land of living. It is also not disputed that she died because of the injuries sustained by her at the bus stand. The dispute is as to who and under what circumstances has caused the fatal injuries to Smt. Satya Devi. According to the prosecution the injuries were caused to her due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the accused, whereas according to the accused the deceased did not sustain injuries because of any rash and negligent driving on his part.
7. The learned trial Magistrate after appraisal of the evidence on record has come to the conclusion that there is no consistent and clear evidence led by the prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the accident resulting in the death of Smt. Satya Devi took place due to rash or negligent driving of the bus in question by the accused. A perusal of the record reveals that the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Magistrate is supportable on the basis of the material on record.
8. As already stated the FIR Ex. PW 9/B came into being on the basis of statement Ex. PW9/A made by PW 10 Meera Devi to the Police under Section 154, Cr.P.C. The sum and substance of the contents of Ex. PW/9A and the consequential FIR are that the accused was driving the bus at a very high speed and negligently, therefore, front left side of the bus struck against the deceased resulting in injuries to her. This version is not proved to be the version of PW10 Meera Devi on the basis of what she might have seen herself. It is admitted by her that her statement Ex.PW9/A is based on what had been narrated to her by the persons present on the spot. If so, her version about the circumstances leading to the occurrence of accident is based on information received from others and not on what she might have seen. She has not named any person who might have given her the information about the circumstances in which the accident is alleged to have occurred. Therefore, on the basis of her statement the accused cannot be held liable for any rashness and/or negligence in driving the vehicle.
9. Another witness examined by the prosecution to give an eye account of the accident is PW-7 Roop Singh Thakur. In his examination-in-chief, he has also stated that the accused was driving the bus at a high speed and negligently and struck the front portion of the bus against Satya Devi, However, it is clear from his cross-examination that he has also not seen the occurrence. He has admitted in the cross-examination that he saw the victim when there was a hue and cry and at that time the victim was lying between the bus and a truck. If so, he has also not seen as to under what circumstances the victim met with the accident. What he saw for the first time is that the victim was lying between the bus and the truck. He cannot, therefore, be believed when he states that it was the accused who was driving the bus at a high speed and negligently which led to the accident. He has no occasion to see as to in what manner the accused was driving the bus.
10. The statements of the aforesaid two witnesses that the accused was driving the bus at a very high speed are fully belied by the admission of PW-10 Meera Devi herself that at the time of occurrence the accused was reversing the bus. If so, there is no question of his driving the bus at a high speed when it was in the process of being reversed.
11. It is the case of the prosecution that the offending bus allegedly struck the deceased with its right front portion. Whereas according to PW 7 Roop Singh Thakur when he saw the deceased she was lying between the bus and the truck. A perusal of the photographs Exhibits P-1 to P-6 clearly and unmistakably reveal that a truck is standing on the left side of the bus. Even the site plan Ex. PW9/C shows a truck standing on the left side of the bus and from the bumper of the offending bus the body of the truck is at a distance of only 10 inches. In such a situation, if the right front portion of the bus had struck the deceased, it is impossible that with the impact of the alleged strike she would have fallen in between the truck and the bus as stated by PW-7. Evidently, she would have fallen in front of the right front of the bus and in no case could fall between the bus and the truck, moreso, when the distance between the bus and the truck in their front side is only 10 inches. PW-5 Laxman Ram a police constable also visited the spot after hearing the hue and cry. He claims that the victim was lying in front of the bus at a distance of two feet from the bus. This could be the probable position if the bus had struck the deceased. However, the statement of this witness cannot be relied for the reason that he states that at that time no vehicle was standing on either side of the bus which is false in view of the statement of PW 7 Roop Singh Thakur, the contents of the site plan Ex. PW9/C and the photographs Exs. P1 to P6. PW-7 Roop Singh Thakur has admitted and site plan Ex. PW9/C shows a standing truck on the left side of the bus and so appears from the photographs Exhibits P-1 to P-6.
12. In the site plan Ex. PW9/C the place where the deceased had fallen has been shown at point ‘A’ which is on the extreme left side of the bus. In the ordinary circumstances this also does not seem probable that a person who has been struck with the right side of the bumper of the bus will fall due to the impact of the strike on the extreme left of the bus. Moreover, it is not known as to how the Investigating Officer deciphered this place as the place where the victim fell. In her statement PW-9 Sushila, ASI who conducted the investigation has not explained as to how and from whom she verified the spot position. It is admitted by her that she is not in a position to state as to where the victim was lying because she reached on the spot when the victim had already been removed to the hospital. Thus, it cannot be said that point ‘A’ has been properly mentioned in the spot map Ex. PW9/C.
13. There is no other evidence as to the circumstances under which the accident took place.
14. On the basis of the evidence discussed here-in-above, it cannot be said that the accident occurred due to the driving of the bus by the accused at a very high speed and/or in a negligent manner.
15. In view of the above, the impugned acquittal order does not call for any interference by this Court.
16. Resultantly the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged.