IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. A No. 224 / 2003 Date of decision: 11. 5. 2010 State of H.P. ….Petitioner Versus Imran Khan ……Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Appellant: Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent : Mrs. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate. Surinder Singh J. (Oral) State in this appeal has challenged the acquittal of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A and 201 Indian Penal Code, passed by the learned trial Court in criminal case No. 73/2 of 2002 decided on 7.1.2003. 2. Heard and gone through the evidence on record. 3. In short, prosecution case is that on 4.3.2002 respondent was driving the Scooter 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes - 2 - bearing Registration No. HP-18-7862 on a State Highway Nahan to Rama Dhon Road rashly or negligently. Deceased Kesar Ali was a pillion rider. At about 6.30 p.m., at a place known as “jhamiria” the accident took place and pillion rider sustained multiple grievous injuries and died while being taken to the Hospital. Some one telephonically informed the Police. To this effect rapat Ext. PW5/A was recorded in the Rojnamcha, maintained in Police Station Nahan. Thereafter ASI Dhan Singh rushed to the spot to verify the correctness thereof. He sent Ruka Ext. PW5/A on the basis of which FIR was registered. Scooter in question was taken into possession. 4. Police prepared the site plan, recorded the statements of the witnesses, took photographs of the dead body and also the place of accident. The dead body of deceased Kesar Ali was sent for autopsy. Respondent was also got medically examined. He had also sustained injuries as mentioned in the MLC Ext. PW8/A. Mechanical examination of the Scooter in question was got conducted. Report is Ext. PW3/A. 5. After completing the investigation, challan was presented in the Court for the trial of - 3 - the respondent. He was accordingly charge sheeted for the above stated offences, to which he denied and claimed trial. 6. Respondent faced trial and at the end of the trial he was acquitted by the learned trial Court on the ground that prosecution failed to produce cogent, credible and convincing evidence to prove that the respondent, at the relevant time, was driving the said Scooter and was responsible for the said accident, as alleged. 7. In the instant case, there is no eye witness nor there is any direct or circumstantial evidence to prove that respondent, at the relevant time, was driving the Scooter in question rashly or negligently which caused the accident. 8. The respondent had raised the specific defence that it was the deceased who was driving the said vehicle and met with an accident wherein he also sustained injuries. 9. Prosecution mainly relied upon the statement of PW2 Sanjay Kumar, who was running a Restaurant/P.C.O. near Do-sarka. According to him on 24.3.2002 at about 2 p.m., respondent along with his deceased friend had purchased liquor and after purchasing the liquor, respondent drove-off the - 4 - Scooter along with pillion rider but the case of the prosecution is that accident had taken place at 6.30 p.m. on the same day but there is nothing to show that respondent was driving the Scooter in question which caused the said accident. The findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court are borne out from the evidence on record, therefore, calls for no interference. As such the appeal is dismissed. May 11, 2010 (Surinder Singh),J (cm)