IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.A. No.508/2000 Decided on.: 3.7.2008 State of H.P. …Appellants\. Versus Meera alias Paras Ram. …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. no For the appellants : Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sharma, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, J. The respondent was prosecuted in case No. 402-I/95 under sections 279,337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. and was acquitted on 29.3.2000. The present appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment dated 29.3.2000. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that complainant Goverdhan (PW-2) is a resident of Kawal Kot. On 21st May, 1995, bricks were loaded in the Tractor at village Dhanotu and it was on its way to village Palahi. The complainant was also sitting on the tractor. The tractor met with an accident near Dharada. The 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? no. 2 complainant received injuries on his leg and body. The FIR was registered and investigation was carried out. The site plan was prepared by Head Constable Onkar Singh. PW-2 Goverdhan was medically examined. The tractor was also examined mechanically. The challan was put up against the accused for the commission of offences under sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses to prove its case. The respondent was examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal procedure. Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case and the judgment of the learned trial court dated 29.3.2000 is not maintainable in the eyes of law. Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sharma, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent has supported the judgment dated 29.3.2000. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. PW-1 Sh. Gorakhu Ram has stated that he has not seen the manner in which the accident has taken place. He reached the spot after the tractor has already met with an accident. He could not disclose the speed of the tractor. PW-2 Sh. Goverdhan has initially stated in his examination-in-chief that the tractor was being driven at excessive speed. However, in his cross-examination, he has stated that he was not aware about the speed of the tractor. In the middle of his cross-examination, he deposed that he was not in a position to state about the negligence of the driver, but towards the end of his cross- examination, he has stated that the accident took place due to 3 negligence of the driver. PW-3 Matha Ram has categorically stated in his examination-in-chief that he has not visited the spot and the accident has not taken place in his presence. PW-4 Sh. Sukh Ram in his cross-examination has stated that the speed of the tractor was normal. He has further stated that he was not aware whether the accident took place due to the negligence of the driver or not. PW-11 Sh. Bhagat Ram has not supported the prosecution case. He has stated that he has not seen the accident and he reached the spot when hue and cry was raised by the people after the tractor had met with an accident. The accident has taken place on 21st May, 1995. PW-1 has not seen how the accident has taken place. PW-2 complainant has given different version in his examination-in-chief and cross-examination with regard to the speed and the manner the tractor fell down. PW-4 was also not aware about the speed of the tractor and he did not know how the accident has taken place though he was travelling on the same tractor. Similarly, PW-11 has reached the spot after the accident had taken place. Thus, it is evident that there are contradictions in the manner in which the accident has taken place in the statements of PW-1, PW-2, PW-4 and PW-11. There is no conclusive evidence brought on record by the prosecution that the tractor was being driven by the respondent in a rash and negligent manner. The cumulative effect of the above discussion is that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused person and he has rightly been acquitted by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sundernagar, District Mandi vide judgment dated 29.3.2000. 4 Consequently, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. The bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. July 3, 2008. ( Rajiv Sharma), Judge *Awasthi*