Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Som Ram (PW1) met them on the way, who also boarded the motorcycle. The motorcyclist reached Lower Nagni ahead of the HRTC workshop. The truck bearing registration No. HP-38-6385 was moving ahead of the motorcycle at a high speed. Ramesh attempted to overtake the truck from the left side. The driver of the truck turned the truck towards the workshop. The truck hit the motorcycle. Ramesh Kumar was crushed under the tyres. He succumbed to his injuries. Informant Subhash Kumar and Som Raj also sustained injuries. The accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the truck. The injured were carried to the hospital, and intimation was given to the police. HC Baldev (PW9) recorded the statement of Subhash Kumar (Ex.PW3/A), which were sent to the Police Station, where FIR (Ex.PW9/A) was registered. HC Baldev filed an application to conduct the medical examination of the injured. Dr. Raman Sharma (PW7) conducted the medical examination of Som Raj and Subhash Kumar and 2025:HHC:29403 found that they had suffered multiple injuries. He issued MLCs (Ex.PW7/A and Ex. PW7/B). Dr. Rajiv Sehgal (PW8) conducted subsequent treatment of Som Raj, who found that Som Raj had .

overtaking the truck from the left side. Subhash Kumar (PW3) admitted that the truck was being driven at a slow speed. The Investigating Officer, HC Baldev Singh (PW9), admitted that the motorcycle was towards the left side of the truck and was crushed when the truck turned towards its left to enter the workshop. The truck driver could not have noticed the motorcycle being driven towards the left side. The accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. Hence, the accused was acquitted.

13. The present appeal has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
14. It was specifically asserted in the statement (Ex.PW3/A) that Ramesh Kumar (deceased) attempted to overtake the truck from the left side. The informant, Subhash Kumar (PW3), stated in his cross-examination that the 2025:HHC:29403 motorcyclist was overtaking the truck from the left side. His statement is also as per the site plan (Ex.PW9/C), wherein the truck has turned towards the left side and the motorcycle was .

crushed under its tyres. The truck turning towards its left side could only have crushed the motorcycle travelling on its left and not the right side. Therefore, it was duly established on record that the motorcyclist was overtaking the truck from its left side.

15. The Central Government has framed the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, to regulate the movement of traffic. Rule 4 provides that a driver of the motorcycle shall pass to the right of the truck proceeding in the same direction as himself, except as provided in Rule 5. Rule 5 provides that when the driver has indicated his intention to turn to the right, the driver may pass from the left. Thus, the combined effect of these two rules is that a driver can pass only from the right side of the vehicle proceeding in the same direction, except when the vehicle going ahead is turning towards its right. This ensures that the driver can easily notice other vehicles overtaking his vehicle, and can ensure smooth overtaking. All the vehicles coming from the opposite side are also passing towards his right side. Hence, the overtaking vehicle is aware of the other vehicles coming from the 2025:HHC:29403 opposite side. Learned Trial Court had rightly pointed out that when the vehicle is overtaking from the left, it is not possible for the driver to know about it, especially in the case of a big vehicle .