IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.152 of 2003. Date of Decision: 22nd March, 2010. State of Himachal Pradesh .. Appellant. Versus Hari Ram .. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant: Mr. Anshul Bansal, Additional Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Malay Kaushal, Advocate, vice Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J (oral) . The acquittal of the respondent on the basis of identity recorded by the learned trial Court in Criminal Case No.90/2 of 1999, decided on 28th October, 2002, under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, has been challenged in this appeal by the State. In short, the prosecution story can be summed up thus. On 22nd May, 1998 PW-1 Kulbir Singh took a lift on the scooter bearing registration No.PB-02J-9080 of PW-5 Baljeet Singh. When they reached near “Dharamkanta”, a Canter vehicle of the Company bearing registration No.HP- 12-2800 was coming from Billanwali side, hit the scooter with the result the scooterist as well as its pillion rider fell off the road and sustained injuries. It is alleged that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - driving of the Canter driver. Police was informed. Statement of Kulbir Singh was recorded which culminated into FIR Ext.P-5. Police prepared the site plan, recorded the statements of the witnesses. Medical examination of Baljeet Singh scooterist was conducted by PW-3 Dr. Sanjeev Kapoor and thereafter he was referred to PGI, Chandighar, where he was examined by PW-6A Dr. Sanjay Bansal and as per the medical reports he sustained grievous injuries. The pillion rider did not sustain any injury, therefore, he was not got medically examined. The mechanical examination of both the vehicles was conducted by PW-4 Ram Lal. After completing investigation, the case was presented in the Court against the respondent for trial. At the end of the trial, the respondent was acquitted for the reason that he was not connected and identified to be the driver of the Canter which belongs to ”M/S. Him Teknoforge Private Limited” Company at Baddi. Heard and gone through the record. In the instant case the accident stands proved and it is also proved that the scooterist, namely, Baljeet Singh (PW-5) sustained grievous injuries. It is also a fact that Kulbir Singh (PW-1) was a pillion rider on the scooter and he reported the accident to the police. Kulbir Singh was examined as PW-1 in the trial Court. He did not name the respondent responsible for the said accident in FIR Ext.P-5, but according to him, the respondent was an employee of the factory where he also used to work, therefore, he knew him. He did not state specifically that on the date of alleged accident the respondent was the driver of the said vehicle, but according to him generally this vehicle has been in the charge of respondent. PW-5 Baljeet Singh is the scooterist. His statement was recorded by the police after five months of the accident. He was called to identify the respondent in the Police Station. Although he stated that the respondent was - 3 - responsible for the said accident, but in cross-examination he stated that “M/S. Him Teknoforge” is a Company and has number of vehicles and he did not know how many drivers were appointed by the said Company to drive their vehicles. The overall view of the statement of said witness shows that he had filed a claim petition and stated that the respondent was the driver with the Company, but he was not categorical that on the day of alleged accident the respondent was driving the vehicle. The best evidence to hold the respondent responsible for the alleged accident was the log book of the Canter, but according to PW-8 Sub Inspector Joginder Singh, the same was not taken into custody for the best reason known to him. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the respondent has taken the defence that one A.K.Sharma, an employee of the Company contacted him that his license was required for the release of the Canter and also for getting insurance amount of the damage caused to it, when he refused he was threatened to be removed from the service, it was then he handed over the license and probably thereafter he was implicated as an accident in the case. Further, the accident had taken place at “T-Point” on the road leading to Billanwali in front of two “Khokhas”, one belonging to Dharminder Yadav and another to Chhotu Prasad. They happened to be the witnesses of the memos, they could have been the best persons to say as to who was the driver at that time and responsible for the accident in question. But they were not examined by the prosecution. For the reasons aforesaid, in my opinion, the prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that it was the respondent who was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and caused the accident. The view taken by the learned trial Court is reasonable and based upon the analysis of the evidence on record. - 4 - For the above reasons, the appeal is without merit. The respondent is discharged from the bail bonds entered upon by him at any time during the proceedings of this case. Records of the Court below be sent back forthwith. March 22, 2010. (Surinder Singh), (rc) Judge.