IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Criminal Appeal No. 405 of 2003. Date of decision: 18.8.2010. State of Himachal Pradesh .…Appellant. Vs Ram Rattan ....Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the Appellant : Mr. P.K.Sharma, Addl. A.G. with Mrs. Shubh Mahajan, DAG. For the Respondent : M/s D.K.Sharma & Y.Paul, Advocates. __________________________________________________________ Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 29.1.2003 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Arki in Criminal Case No. 46/2 of 2000 acquitting the respondent for offence punishable under Sections 279, 304-A IPC. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that PW-1 Ravina complainant on 21.5.2000 had gone to Jungle to bring fuel wood alongwith Safina. At about 10.00 a.m. they were returning with bundles of fuel wood on their heads. At place Baradghati truck No. HP-11-2071 driven by respondent came from Arki side. Both of them stopped and waited the truck to cross. Thereafter they started walking but suddenly truck came in reverse motion and hit Safina, she was run over under the tyre of the truck and died on the spot. The _____________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes 2 statement Ex.PW-1/A under Section 154 Cr.P.C. of Ravina was recorded and thereafter FIR Ex. PW-1/B came to be registered. On completion of investigation, challan was presented against the respondent under Sections 279, 304-A IPC and accordingly notice of accusation was put to him. The prosecution has examined 11 witnesses and produced certain documents on record. The statement of respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the prosecution case. On the conclusion of the trial, the respondent was acquitted, hence appeal. 3. I have heard Mr. P.K.Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General and M/s D.R.Sharma and Y.Paul, Advocates, learned counsel for the respondent and have also gone through the record. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has erred in acquitting the respondent in view of evidence which has come on record. The learned counsel for the respondent have supported the impugned judgment. 4. Ex.PW-1/A is the statement of PW-1 Ravina recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. in which she has stated that the truck came from Arki side, she and Safina waited for crossing of the truck. At the time of crossing of the truck both of them came on the berm but in the meantime the truck came in reverse motion, both of them ran towards both sides of the road. Safina ran towards metalled portion of the road. The truck kept on moving in reverse direction, her sister- in-law Safina screamed. The headloads of fuel wood of both of them fell down. The truck moved forward, she told the driver that he had 3 crushed her sister-in-law who came under the left rear tyre of the truck and died on the spot. 5. PW-1 Ravina Kureshi has stated that on 21.5.2000 at about 10.00 a.m. she and her sister-in-law were returning from Jungle with fuel wood, a truck came from Arki side, both of them stopped and waited for the crossing of the truck. The truck crossed but came in reverse motion, the truck driver did not sound horn. She and her sister-in-law ran here and there. The respondent reversed the truck in high speed and ran over her sister-in-law as a result of which, their head loads of the fuel wood fell down. The truck was stopped at that place, her sister-in-law died on the spot. In cross-examination, she has stated that there is a steep gradient of 70 degree at the place of accident. The truck was loaded with bricks. The truck had hardly covered 3-4 feet then all of a sudden came in reverse motion with a loud thud. The driver could not change the gear as the gear slipped . Safina struck against the truck, the place was uneven. The foot of deceased slipped and she struck with the tyre of the truck and died. The prosecution has not examined any other eye witness of the accident. It has come in the statement of PW-1 that there is a store of the Society nearby. 6. PW-2 Sabar Kureshi has stated that his sister-in-law Safina was run over by the truck, many persons gathered on the spot. PW-2 is not an eye witness. PW-3 Sarvar Kureshi is the husband of the deceased but he is also not an eye witness. PW-4 Prem Sharma is the photographer. PW-5 Kameshwar reached the spot after the accident. He has stated that many persons had gathered on the spot but he is also not an eye witness. PW-8 Jai Dev Kaushal reached the spot when he was told about the accident by 4 someone. In cross-examination, he has stated that in view of gradient of road at site the accident could take place due to mechanical failure as he himself is a driver since 1980. PW-9 Sant Lal doctor has proved post-mortem report Ex.PW-9/A. PW-10 Ashok Verma is the Investigating Officer. In cross-examination, he has stated that he does not remember whether there is a store near the place of accident. 7. The statement of PW-1 Ravina Kureshi made by her in the court is to be appreciated very closely alongwith her statement Ex.PW-1/A under section 154 Cr.P.C. inasmuch as she is the only eye witness of the accident examined by the prosecution. In her statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW-1/A she has stated that truck started moving backward and hit Safina. Thereafter, the truck was moved forward. Her sister-in-law came under rear left tyre of the truck and died on the spot. In her statement in the court, she has not stated that the truck was moved forward. In her statement in the Court, she has stated that there is a steep gradient of 70 degree at the place of accident, she heard a loud thud and thereafter truck started moving backward. The driver could not change the gear as the gear slipped. The place was uneven. She has stated that on seeing the truck, both of them started running here and there but she has also stated that the deceased slipped and struck against the tyre of the truck and died. The statement of PW-1 alongwith her statement Ex.PW-1/A recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. indicate that the deceased unfortunately slipped and struck against the tyre and died. The truck started moving backward as the gear slipped. 8. PW-8 Jai Dev, who himself is a driver has stated that in view of gradient of the road, the accident could be due to mechanical 5 failure as he himself is a driver since 1980. PW-1 has stated that there is a store near the place of accident. PW-10 Ashok Verma, I.O. has shown his ignorance regarding existence of store of the Society near the place of the accident. PW-10 has not tried to ascertain whether someone was present in the store at the time of the accident and had seen the accident. The testimony of PW-1 is not enough to come to the conclusion that accident took place due to rash or negligent driving of respondent. There is no other evidence to corroborate the statement of PW-1. On the contrary the statement of PW-1 excludes negligence on the part of respondent for the accident. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken a view which emerges from the evidence on record. It cannot be said that the view taken by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate is perverse. The appellant has failed to prove rash or negligence act on the part of the respondent for causing the accident. There is no merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds are discharged. August 18, 2010. ( Kuldip Singh ), (GR) Judge.