STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. ROOP CHAND
LAWS(HPH)-2011-12-18
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on
December 12,2011
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Appellant
VERSUS
ROOP CHAND
Respondents
JUDGEMENT
SURJIT SINGH, J. -
(1.)STATE has appealed against the judgment dated 4th October, 2004, passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rampur, whereby respondent Roop Chand, who was tried for
offences, under Sections 336, 337, 427 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 184 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, has been acquitted.
(2.)RESPONDENT had been working as a driver on a bus, bearing registration No.HP -06 -2817, in the year 2001. On 26th November, 2001, he ignited the engine of the bus, at a place called Butti -Curve and leaving the engine ignited, he went to a nearby tea -stall to take tea. In the meanwhile, two persons, by the name of Ashok Kumar and Pari Chand, went to the site, where the bus was parked and they loaded one heavy machine inside the bus and also occupied seats in the bus. Two passengers, named Shankri Devi and Shivani, were already on board the bus, when the aforesaid machine was loaded. Soon thereafter, the bus started moving. It damaged the parapet and also one shop and rolled down the road. Two of the passengers jumped out, when the bus started moving. The remaining two passengers remained in the bus, when it rolled down and they sustained simple hurts.
Matter was reported to the police. On investigation, it was found that the respondent had conducted himself in a rash or negligent manner and because of that accident had taken place. So, the respondent was challaned. Learned trial Court put the substance of accusation to the respondent, who pleaded not guilty. Therefore, the trial Court tried him for the aforesaid offences.
(3.)PROSECUTION examined all the four passengers on board the bus as also the owner of the tea -stall, where the respondent had gone to take tea, to bring the guilt home to the respondent. Learned trial Magistrate concluded that the evidence did not prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the respondent had deboarded the bus, keeping the engine ignited and taking no precautions, like applying wooden block or stone etc. against the tyres of the bus to ensure that it did not roll down.
(2.)RESPONDENT had been working as a driver on a bus, bearing registration No.HP -06 -2817, in the year 2001. On 26th November, 2001, he ignited the engine of the bus, at a place called Butti -Curve and leaving the engine ignited, he went to a nearby tea -stall to take tea. In the meanwhile, two persons, by the name of Ashok Kumar and Pari Chand, went to the site, where the bus was parked and they loaded one heavy machine inside the bus and also occupied seats in the bus. Two passengers, named Shankri Devi and Shivani, were already on board the bus, when the aforesaid machine was loaded. Soon thereafter, the bus started moving. It damaged the parapet and also one shop and rolled down the road. Two of the passengers jumped out, when the bus started moving. The remaining two passengers remained in the bus, when it rolled down and they sustained simple hurts.
Matter was reported to the police. On investigation, it was found that the respondent had conducted himself in a rash or negligent manner and because of that accident had taken place. So, the respondent was challaned. Learned trial Court put the substance of accusation to the respondent, who pleaded not guilty. Therefore, the trial Court tried him for the aforesaid offences.
(3.)PROSECUTION examined all the four passengers on board the bus as also the owner of the tea -stall, where the respondent had gone to take tea, to bring the guilt home to the respondent. Learned trial Magistrate concluded that the evidence did not prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the respondent had deboarded the bus, keeping the engine ignited and taking no precautions, like applying wooden block or stone etc. against the tyres of the bus to ensure that it did not roll down.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.