IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 184 of 2002 Date of decision: 17.12.2008 State of H.P. Appellant Versus Vikrant Bhardwaj Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting1? For the appellant: Mrs. Shyama Dogra, Dy. Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. Sunil Chauhan, Advocate. V.K.Ahuja, J. This is an appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the judgment of the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, dated 3.11.2001 vide which the respondent was acquitted of the notice of accusation put up to him under Sections 279 and 337 IPC. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that an information was received at the Police Station, Chhota Shimla at 9.45 A.M. on 4.7.1999 from one Shayam Singh that one person has been hit with a car. The police officer proceeded to the spot and recorded the statement of Devi saran complainant on which statement, a case was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed as against the respondents under Sections 279 and 337 IPC. The respondent was tried by the learned trial Court leading to his acquittal. I have heard Mrs. Subh Mahajan, Dy. Advocate General on behalf of the State and Mr. Sunil Chauhan, Advocate, on behalf of the respondent. Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? On appraisal of the record of the case, it is clear that to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined seven witnesses. PW-1 Devi Saran is the complainant, who has stated that he had come to Shimla along with his son Uma Shankar since his son was to appear in JBT examination. He stated that when they were standing at Chhota Shimla Chowk, at about 9.45 AM, one Maruti Car, number given by him, came at a fast speed and struck against him and he suffered injuries on his head, right leg and other parts of the body. He further stated that the respondent was driving the car which was being driven at a high speed. He also stated that the accident took place due to the negligence of the respondent. He stated that his statement Ex.PW-1/A was recorded by the police and that the police had taken him to IGMC for treatment. In cross-examination, he has stated that his back was facing towards Secretariat when the accident took place. He denied the suggestion that he was trying to cross the road when the accident took place. He has stated that he along with his son were standing on the back of the Secretariat side and the vehicle also came from the Secretariat side. It is in view of this part of the statement made by the complainant that his back was towards the Secretariat side and the vehicle also came from the Secretariat side, the learned trial Court concluded that it was difficult for the complainant to know about the speed of the vehicle or the manner in which it was being driven by respondent resulting in the accident. He also denied the suggestion that there was rush of vehicles on the road when he vehicle in question hit him. He admitted that the respondent had paid him his medical expenses. PW-2 Uma Shanker and son of the complainant has stated that they were standing on the spot when the vehicle came with high speed and hit his father and he suffered injuries. He stated that the driver of the Car stopped at the spot. In cross-examination, he admitted that many vehicles were moving on the road and it was difficult to cross the road. He also admitted that when his father fell down, he learnt about the accident. He denied the suggestion that the accident occurred as his father was trying to cross the road. He stated that he did not notice the speed of the vehicle but admitted that the vehicle was on its own side. He admitted that about 50 persons had gathered at the spot at the time of the accident but denied that the accident took place due to the negligence on the part of his father. The only other independent witness out of many person present at the spot, examined is PW-6 Shyam Singh, coolie who has stated that the complainant was standing on the side when a Maruti Car came with a high speed and struck against the complainant. In cross examination, he has stated that he was standing on the road side where some other coolies were also standing there. He further stated that no other person was present at the spot except the complainant and his son Uma Shanker, which is contrary to the evidence of the complainant that many persons were present at the spot when the occurrence took place. He also admitted that he saw the vehicle only when it had hit the complainant. The main point taken by the learned trial Court in disbelieving the prosecution case is that the complainant, his son and the Investigating Officer PW-7 HC Dharam Dass have stated that the accident had not taken place at the centre of the road but had stated that the complainant was standing on the side of the road , PW-1 Devi Saran has stated in his cross-examination that he was standing near the railing when the vehicle hit him. The learned trial Court has made a reference to the photographs which clearly show that the accident took place at the centre of the road and not on the side of the road near railing which falsifies the statements of eye witnesses. The Investigating Officer might have denied the suggestion that the Car was standing in the centre of the road but the photographs clearly show that the car was standing in the centre of the road which gives credence to the defence plea that the accident took place at the centre of the road due to the negligence of the complainant himself who was crossing the road. In view of the above discussion, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court and, as such, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed accordingly. Bail bonds furnished by the respondent shall stand discharged. 17th December, 2008 (V.K.Ahuja),J. (sds)