IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.153 of 2003. Date of Decision: 22nd March, 2010. State of Himachal Pradesh .. Appellant. Versus Ramesh Chand .. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant: Mr. Anshul Bansal, Additional Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. M.S. Guleria, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J (oral) . The respondent was acquitted by the learned trial Court under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, in Criminal Case No.141-II of 1994 vide its judgment rendered on 25th October, 2000. The acquittal of the respondent has been challenged in this appeal by the State. The prosecution story in brief is, that on 6th May, 1994 at about 11.00 a.m. at a place known as Galian in the jurisdiction of Police Station, Lambagaon, Sita Ram Foreman of Electricity Department alongwith his Assistant Lineman and five other labourers, was replacing overhead electricity wires of the electrical pole. It is alleged that the wires were held by PW-1 Sita Ram on its one end and on the other it was in the hand of PW-3 Rajinder Kumar. In the meantime, bus No.HP-22- 0587, which was being driven by the respondent came across in a high speed. Sita Ram though signaled to stop it, but despite that the respondent did not care 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - for it with the result electricity wires lying on the road got trapped with the bus/ tyres. Sita Ram was dragged with it and he sustained injuries. The report was lodged by the injured in Police Station, Lambagaon, which culminated into FIR Ext. PW-12/A. The police visited the spot, prepared the site plan and took into possession the alleged offending vehicle and its mechanical examination was got done. Sita Ram was got medially examined and his Medico Legal Certificate is Ext.PW-1/A. After completing investigation, the case was presented in the Court against the respondent for trial. At the end of the trial, he was acquitted of the aforesaid offences. Mr. Anshul Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General, vehemently argued that the learned trial Court did not properly appreciate the evidence on record which resulted into miscarriage of justice. Contra, Mr. M.S. Guleria supported the impugned judgment of acquittal. PW-1, Sita Ram when examined in the Court, stated that he was standing on the side of the road, whereas PW-3 Rajinder Kumar had climbed up the pole. Some stones were put on the side of the road and the flags were also put thereon. He was holding one end of the wire and the other end of the wire was in the hand of Rajinder Kumar (PW-3). Wires were lying on the road. The driver was signaled to stop the vehicle, did not either slow down nor stopped. The wires which were lying on the road got entangled with the tyres of the bus with the result PW-1 fell down and got dragged to some distance. By this act of the respondent, he sustained injuries on his head, legs and other parts of the body. PW-2 Kishori Lal did not specifically state that one end of the wire was held by Foreman Sita Ram (PW-1). He gave another version that Sita Ram was standing on the road just to signal the coming vehicles and the wires were spread on both sides of the road. When the said bus crossed the road, the wires got entangled with the tyres of the bus by which the Foreman got dragged who - 3 - was standing at a distance of about 15 feet. In cross-examination he stated that the Foreman was not holding the wires as stated by him (PW-1), whereas, Rajinder Kumar (PW-3) stated that one end of the wire was in the hand of Sita Ram. He also did not say that Sita Ram was deputed to signal or stop the vehicle as the men were at work. PW-5 Gian Chand has also made similar statement that on both sides of the road they have put up red flags, but did not state that Sita Ram was deputed to signal/warn the vehicles. In cross-examination he also stated that PW- 1 was not holding wire from another end. Similar is the statement of PW-6 Pritam Singh. Respondent in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure while denying the circumstances found attendant upon him categorically stated that the wires did not get entangled with his vehicle. The Investigating Officer was not examined, thus the site plan and his conclusions remained un-exhibited. On the reappraisal of the evidence, I find two versions from the evidence adduced and also find that the statements of the prosecution witnesses are contradictory on material points, which raises a doubt in the correctness of prosecution case. Therefore, in my opinion, the learned trial Court rightly gave the benefit of doubt to the respondent. Therefore, the judgment of acquittal does not require any interference, which is accordingly dismissed. The respondent is discharged from the bail bonds entered upon by him at any time during the proceedings of this case. Records of the Court below be sent back forthwith. March 22, 2010. (Surinder Singh), (rc) Judge.