STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. RANJIT KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the dismissal of prosecution of the respondent for rash and negligent driving on a public way, the State has come up before this Court by way of filing the above captioned appeal.

(2.) On 22/11/2007, the police officials received information about the road accident. After that the investigator reached at the spot of accident. The complainant Veena Sharma, who was a BDC Member, informed the investigator that she was driving her Santro Car. She was going towards Palampur to get her car serviced. Apart from her, her relatives namely Manju Lata and her nephew Pankaj were also sitting in the car. At 3.30 p.m., when they reached near "Iqu Moud', then a Tata truck was being driven in a high speed and it deviated from its side and entered into the lane where she was driving her Santro. After that the driver could not control the truck and hit the Santro Car. The driver did not even attempt to apply breaks and stopped the truck at a distance of 30-40 meters from the spot. Due to such impact, although they did not suffer any injury, but substantive damage was caused to the car. The investigator recorded this information vide memo Ex.PW-1/A. The investigator sent rukka to the police station for registration of FIR. Consequently, FIR Ex.PW-5/B was registered in the aforesaid police station.

(3.) At the spot, the investigator prepared the site plan Ex.PW-5/D and took documents of the truck into possession. The investigator also obtained mechanical report of the truck as per the said report Ex.PW-1/A, the mechanic did not notice any mechanical defect in the truck. After completion of the investigation the officer incharge of the police station launched prosecution by filing report under Sec. 173(2) Cr.P.C.