IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.266 of 2005 Date of Decision: December 6, 2011 State of Himachal Pradesh ..Appellant Versus Sunil Kumar son of Sh. Bhuri Singh, Caste Rajput, Resident of Village Bajahar, Police Station Sujanpur, Tappa Jangal, Rajgir, Tehsil Sujanpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. .. Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondent: Mr. Chaman Negi, Advocate. Appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 15.2.2005, passed by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Court No.II, Hamirpur, H.P. in Cr. Case No. 30-II-2002, under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC __________________________________________ Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) State has appealed against the judgment, dated 15.2.2005, of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No.2, Hamirpur, whereby respondent Sunil Kumar, who was Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgmen t ? É2É charged with and tried for offences, under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC, has been acquitted. 2. Case was registered against the respondent on the basis of statement Ext. PW7/A of PW-7 Inderjit Singh, recorded, under Section 154 Cr. P.C. As per the said statement Ext. PW7/A, on 3.2.2002, when PW-7 Inderjit Singh was driving his Taxi, bearing registration No. PB-10K- 9849, near village Sachuhi in Hamirpur District with PW-3 Kuldeep Singh and his brother, deceased Ashok Kumar, Tractor No. HMT-3522 appeared at a fast speed from the opposite direction and hit the taxi as a result of which it rolled down the road and fell about 150-200 feet deep, due to which Ashok Kumar died on the spot and Kuldeep Singh and the maker of the statement received injuries. 3. Police investigated the case. The Van and the tractor were got mechanically examined. Postmortem of the dead body of deceased Ashok Kumar was got conducted and injured PW-3 Kuldeep Singh and PW-7 Inderjit Singh were got medically examined. On completion of investigation, report under Section 173 Cr. P.C. was filed. 4. Trial Court charged the respondent with the offences, under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC and on his pleading not guilty put him on trial. 5. Prosecution mainly relied upon the testimony of PW-3 Kuldeep Singh and PW7 Inderjit Singh to substantiate É3É the accusation that accident took place, because of rash and fast driving of tractor by the respondent. Both the witnesses admitted, in the cross-examination, that there was a blind curve at the site of the accident. Both of them stated that on seeing the tractor coming at a fast speed, van had been brought to a halt and the tractor hit the stationary van. They were confronted with the statement Ext. PW7/A made by PW7 Inderjit Singh, in which not only that it is not stated that the van was stationary, but it is specifically stated that the van was in motion. It has been admitted by PW3 Kuldeep Singh that the road at the site was not vide enough to admit the moving of two vehicles side-by-side. Mechanical test of the vehicles, conducted by PW-10 Ranjit Singh, did not indicate any marks of collision on the tractor. Also, the police did not associate the occupants of the tractor, whom the respondent examined as defence witnesses and they testified that the accident took place, because the van was being driven very fast and it appeared at the curve and rammed into the tractor, which was moving at a slow speed. 6. In view of the above stated position, there does not seem to be any reason for interfering with the judgment of trial Court. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. December 6, 2011 (ss) (Surjit Singh), J.