IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No.296 of 2003. Date of Decision: 13.7.2010. _______________________________________________ State of H.P. ….Appellant. Versus. Puran Chand. ….Respondent. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General. For Respondent. : Mr. Dalip Sharma, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). The State is aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dehra acquitting the respondent for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case in brief is that on 21.8.2009 the complainant Malkiyat Singh reported to the Police Station at Jawalamukhi that after paying his electricity bill, he was coming to his shop which is on Nadaun road near the notified area Committee, Chungi Jawalamukhi. At about 10.45 a.m. when he reached near the house of Jeet Lal Sood, a truck bearing No HP-11-2207 which was being driven by Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?Yes. 2 respondent Puran Chand in a rash and negligent manner on the wrong side of the road as a result of which his left foot was crushed under the tyre. The occurrence was witnessed by Karan Vir Sood, Anil Chauhan and Rakesh, who took him to the Civil Hospital, Jawalamukhi. On the evidence on record, the learned trial Court holds that though the complainant, who appeared as PW2 and PW4 Anil Kumar, have supported the case with respect to the truck tyre, crushing the foot of the complainant, yet placing reliance on Ext. PW5/A which is the report of the mechanic who examined the truck, acquitted the respondent holding therein that the accident had occurred due to sudden breaking of the steering rod. PW5 Joginder Singh, mechanic, H.R.T.C. Dehra stated that the steering wheel had become free because of the mechanical defect which was not a patent defect. In the report Ext.PW5/A, he states that the arm belt of steering wheel had broken as a result of which it was not possible to control the vehicle. This report has remained unchallenged. Ext. PW7/A is the spot map which shows that the truck, in fact, was dragged to its right side and the distance traveled from the place where the accident occurred is hardly about 8 to 10 feet from the place where the respondent applied brakes. There were skid marks on the road meaning that the respondent had applied brakes to control the vehicle. I do not find any perversity in the reasoning of the learned court below. It is evident from the evidence on 3 record that the accident took place because of a mechanical failure and was not premeditated act on the part of the respondent who was neither negligent or careless. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the respondent are discharged. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. July 13, 2010(R)