IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No. : 107 of 2001 Reserved on: : 29.12.2007 Date of decision : 3.1.2008 State of H.P. … Appellant. Versus Prithvi Chand. …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the appellant. : Mr. Virender Kumar Verma, Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr.H.K.Paul, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, J. The respondent was prosecuted in case No. 143/2 of 2000/95 under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kasauli at Solan (Addl. Charge) and was acquitted on 9.8.2000. The State has preferred this appeal against the acquittal of the respondent. The brief facts of the case are that on 3.3.1995 at about 5.00 P.M. near Koti Nafed Juice Factory, respondent was driving vehicle No. PB-12A- 9621 on a public way in a rash and negligent manner and it hit against a parapet and thereafter the vehicle fell down in the Nallah. In this accident Ram Dittu, Bashir Ahmad and Khursheed Ahmad sustained grievous injuries and Subhash Gupta, Vishal Bansal, Abdul Gali, Joginder Singh and accused sustained simple injuries and one Paramjit Singh died in the accident. F.I.R was registered and the matter was investigated. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? The prosecution had examined as many as 14 witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The trial Court acquitted the respondent on 9.8.2000. The learned Additional Advocate General has strenuously contended that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused. He further contended that the trial Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence led by the prosecution. Mr.H.K.Paul, Advocate, had supported the judgement dated 9.8.2000. I have heard the parties and perused the record carefully. PW-1 Kumari Shaloo Rani has deposed that she was coming from her Nanihal from Patiala and when she was travelling from Chandigarh to Dharampur in bus No. 9621 the bus rolled down from the road and she sustained injuries. She has stated that the accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused. The most important witness in the present case is the mechanic, i.e. PW-5 Amar Singh, who had mechanically examined the bus and submitted his report Ext.PW-5/A. It has come in the mechanical report that Kamani-patta No.2of the right side of the bus was already broken and patta No.1 was broken in the accident and its 1/4th part was already broken. The statement of PW-5 Amar Singh stood corroborated with report Ext.PW5/A. PW-12 Jai Gopal has also deposed that according to his investigation accident took place due to the breaking of Patta of the right side of the bus. Bus was coming from Kalka towards Dharampur. The mechanic has stated in his report that when the patta is broken from the right side the bus will lead towards right side due to imbalance. PW-3 Ram Singh had admitted that the accused was driving the bus in right side and had categorically admitted that there was no fault of the driver. PW-4 Bhagat Ram has shown his ignorance about the cause of accident. PW-6 Basher Ahmad though has stated that the bus was being driven in high speed but he has not stated that the driver was driving the bus rashly or negligently. PW-9 Subhash Gupta was declared hostile. PW-10 Khursheed Ahmad has shown his ignorance about the rash and negligent driving of the accused-respondent. In view of the statement of PW-5 Amar Singh read with statement of PW-12 Jai Gopal, only conclusion which can be drawn is that the bus has rolled down due to the mechanical failure i.e. breaking of patta-Kamani. The trial Court after correctly appreciating the evidence has acquitted the accused on 9.8.2000. This Court will not interfere in the well reasoned judgement of the trial Court dated 9.8.2000. Consequently there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the respondent is discharged. January 03, 2008 ( Rajiv Sharma), ™ Judge