IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 78 of 2005. Date of Decision: 17th October, 2011. _______________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh ….Appellant. Versus Vikram Singh …..Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? For the appellant : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Additional Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH, J. (Oral) The respondent was charge-sheeted, tried and acquitted by the learned trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. The State felt aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal, as such filed the present appeal. 2. Heard and gone through the record. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 9.7.2003 at about 10.25 a.m., the respondent was driving official Jeep bearing registration No.HPK-2720 on the public highway in high speed endangering the human life, and hit PW1 Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - Rahim Baksh when he alighted from the auto of PW3 Sanjeev Kumar. He sustained injuries 4. Injured Rahim Baksh examined in the Court stated that the respondent while driving the jeep in question rashly and negligently, but denied that because of rain there was mud on the road and slipped thus got the injuries, whereas this fact stands admitted by PW2 Sanjay Kumar eye witness and PW3 Sanjeev Kumar, the auto-driver. Both the witnesses stated that they were known to the complainant and they appeared as witnesses only to support the case of the complainant so that he would get compensation. 5. PW10 Dr. Arvind Sharma also admitted the suggestion in cross-examination that the injuries sustained by the complainant were possible on account of fall. The defence raised by the respondent stands probablised by the prosecution witnesses itself on probabilities. Therefore, in these circumstances, the case of the prosecution cannot be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the appeal filed by the State lacks merit and as such it is dismissed. 6. The respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him at any stage during the proceedings of this case. 7. Send down the record. October 17, 2011. (Surinder Singh), (rc) Judge.