sec.279,337 IPC is for rash and negligent driving

2) you have to contest the case before trial court

3) it has to be proved by the prosecution that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving by the accused

4) since accused has taken girl to hospital court would also consider said fact while awarding sentence

In "Namdeo vs State of Maharashtra", Crl Appeal No.914/2006 decided on 13.03.2007, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India relied upon its earlier judgment in "Vadivelu Thevar vs State of Madras" 1957 SER 981 wherein it was observed by the Hon'ble Court as under:-

1. As a general rule, a court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness though uncorroborated. One credible witness outweighs the testimony of a number of other witnesses of indifferent character.

2. Unless corroboration is insisted upon by statute, courts should not insist on corroboration except in cases where the nature of the testimony of the single witness itself requires as a rule prudence that corroboration should be insisted upon, for example in case of a child witness or an accomplice or a witness of analogue character.

3. Whether corroboration of the testimony of a single witness is or is not necessary must depend upon facts and circumstances of each case and no general rule can be laid down in a matter like this and much depend upon the judicial discretion of the judge before whom the case comes."

26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that the testimony of a solitary witness can be made the basis of conviction. The credibility of the witness is State v. Joginder Kumar U/s 279/338 IPC & 134/187 M V Act 10/12 FIR No. 305/10 PS Paschim Vihar required to be decided with reference to the quality of his evidence which must be free from blemish or suspicion and must impress the court as fact wholly truthful and so convincing that the court has no hesitation in recording a conviction solely on his uncorroborated testimony.

27. In case titled as "Shadab @ Shamshad vs State of Govt. of NCT of Delhi", Criminal Appeal 1377/2012 decided on 11.03.2014 it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, "There is no hard and fast rule that the testimony of injured requires corroboration before conviction. However, the rule of prudence has to be kept in mind. If the testimony of injured is trustworthy, categorically free of bias, and if there is nothing on record to suggest that the injured has any motive to falsely implicate the accused and allow his real assailants go scot free, the conviction can be based on the sole testimony of injured."

1) deny that you were driving rashly and negligently

2) mention that girl overtook you on wrong side and hence accident occured

3) you immediateldy rushed to hospital and spent money on her treatment

4)burden of proof is on the prose3cution

I have taken bail from police station on the same day Please let me know how I should proceed. Also whether any legal aid can be provided.

You can challenge the case in court by properly cross examining the witnesses.

During cross examination of witnesses you may have to extract the truth from her mouth in the manner known to law.

How to contest the case before trial court?

You can engage a different advocate this time and make sure that you are not being misled by him.

You can challenge the case by prudent cross examination where they can be made to commit that they have done this out of anxiety.