Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

.

5. The accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.PC denied the prosecution's case in its entirety. He claimed that a false case was registered against him, and the witnesses had deposed falsely against him. He did not produce of any evidence in his defence.

6. rt The learned Trial Court held that the informant's testimony was duly corroborated by the statement of Hira Lal and the site plan. It was duly proved that the accused was driving the bus on the right side of the road, which led to the accident. The mere fact that the victim was not holding a valid driving license was not sufficient to acquit the accused. The proximate cause of the accident was the overtaking of the Gypsy by the bus and taking the bus to the wrong side, to which the absence of a license by the victim did not contribute in any manner. The informant and the pillion rider had sustained simple and grievous injuries in the accident. Hence, the learned Trial Court convicted the accused of the commission of offences 2026:HHC:19449 punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC and sentenced him as under: -

Under Section 338 of the To suffer simple imprisonment for six IPC. months, pay a fine of ₹1,000/-, and in default of payment of the fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

All the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently.

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused filed an appeal, which was decided by the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. (learned Appellate Court). The learned Appellate Court concurred with the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court that the accused had driven the bus towards the right side of the 2026:HHC:19449 road, which was the proximate cause of the accident. The fact that the informant was a minor and did not possess a driving .

benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act to the accused.

Therefore, he prayed that the present revision be allowed and the judgments and order passed by the learned Courts below be set aside.

of

11. Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State, submitted that the learned Courts rt below had rightly pointed out that the proximate cause of the accident was driving the bus towards the right side of the road.

xxxxx

14....In the present case, we do not know what the proximate cause of the accident was. We cannot rule out the possibility of the accident having been caused by the 2026:HHC:19449 fault of the deceased. The question of whether Appellant 1 was proficient in driving a Jeep or not resolves the issue.

His proficiency in driving might furnish a defence, which a learner could not have, but the absence of proficiency .