IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.: 267/2001. Reserved on : 27.2.2008 Decided on: 1.3.2008. State of H.P. … … Appellant. Versus Mahender Kumar … … Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 .No. For the Appellant: Mr. Anil Kumar Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondent: Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, Judge: The respondent was prosecuted in Criminal Case No. 77/2 of 1996 under sections 279,337 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan, H.P. and was acquitted on 8.11.2000. The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 8.11.2000. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this case are that on 5.2.1993 at about 4.20 P.M. at place Kotla Nala on Rajgarh- Solan road accused was driving three wheeler bearing No. HP-50- 0087 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and while driving so, accused struck the said Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - vehicle with Ajay Kumar Negi, complainant moving on the road causing simple injuries to him. The FIR was registered on the basis of statement of complainant Ajay Kumar Negi vide FIR PW-7/A at Police Station, Solan. The site plan Ex.PW-9/A was prepared during the course of investigation and the vehicle involved in the accident was also taken into custody along with the documents vide Fard Ex.PW- 5/A. The injured was also medically examined vide MLC Ex.PW-4/B. The vehicle was also examined mechanically. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 9 witnesses. The accused was also examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The trial court acquitted the accused. The learned Deputy Advocate General had strenuously argued that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused. Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent had supported the judgment dated 8.11.2000. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully. The accident took place at 4.20 P.M. on 5.2.1996. The complainant Ajay Kumar Negi PW-8 has stated that he lodged the complaint at 7.00 P.M. at Police Station. However, as per the contents of FIR Ex.PW-7/A, the FIR stood already registered at 4.35 P.M. If the complainant himself has stated that he had made the complaint at about 7.00 P.M. in the evening, it is not understood how the FIR could be registered at 4.35 P.M. as admitted by PW-7 Sh. Rajesh Kumar. Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Head Constable (PW-7) has stated in his cross- examination that the complainant had come to the Police Station. The perusal of Ex.PW-7/A, copy of FIR discloses that there is over-writing with respect to the number of three-wheeler involved in the accident. PW-7 who has written Ex.PW-7/A, has admitted that there is over- - 3 - writing as far as the number of vehicle is concerned. It has come in the evidence that at the time of accident, many people were at the site, but only one witness (PW-1) has been examined. PW-1 Sh. Amar Singh in his cross-examination specifically stated that Ajay Kumar Negi had told him that he did not know who was driving the three-wheeler bearing No. HP-50-0087. He had admitted that 4-5 persons were on the spot where the accident took place. He has further admitted in his cross examination that he has not seen the scooter bearing No. HP- 50-0087 at the time of accident and he was known to Ajay Kumar Negi. There are contradictions in the statement of complainant Ajay Kumar Negi. He has stated that he was moving at the time of accident and in the cross-examination he has stated that he was sitting and he was hit from behind. No witness except PW-8 has stated that vehicle in question was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the accused, however, his statement cannot be believed for the simple reason that if he has been hit from behind, he could not disclose the speed and the manner in which the scooter was being driven at the time of accident. PW-8 Ajay Kumar Negi has stated that after the impact he fell down and was made to stand up by the persons. It is highly improbable that he was hit and could not stand up, still he tried to catch hold the driver by his hand. The prosecution has failed to prove that the accused was driving the scooter in a rash and negligent manner resulting injuries to the complainant. In view of the evidence led by the prosecution the possibility of some other vehicle being involved in the accident cannot be ruled out as observed by the trial court. From the above discussion it is clear that the trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence and has rightly acquitted the respondent. - 4 - Accordingly, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the accused-respondent stand discharged. March 1, 2008. (Rajiv Sharma) *Awasthi*. Judge.