IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal 688 of 2001 Decided on 16.12.2008 State of H P …….Appellant Versus Amar Nath ……. Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh.J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 yes. . For the appellant: Mr. J.S.Guleria, Law Officer. For the Respondent: None Surinder Singh, J. (oral) The State has challenged the acquittal of the respondent, passed by the learned trial court in Cr. Case No. 119/2 of 2000 under sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, on the ground that the learned trial court did not appreciate the evidence of the prosecution in the right perspective. In nut shell the prosecution case is that the respondent was put on trial for the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes. 2 offences aforesaid on the allegations that on 22.8.2000, at a place known as Sainwala his truck bearing registration No.HP-38-6295 came from the Chandigarh side on the State Highway rashly and negligently and dashed against the Tanker of the complainant bearing registration No. HP-17-5437 coming from the opposite direction, of which complainant Hardev was the driver. Both the drivers sustained the injuries and they were medically examined. The matter was reported to the police. On the basis of the statement of the complainant Ex.PW3/A, FIR Ex.PW6/A was registered in Police Station, Nahan. Police visited the spot and prepared the site plan Ex.PW6/C and took the photographs. Both the vehicles were got mechanically examined and reports are Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B. After completing the challan it was presented in the court for trial of the respondent. Notice of accusation was put to the respondent, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined its witnesses and the respondent was also examined, under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Respondent did 3 not lead any evidence. He denied the rash and negligent driving and raised the defence that his truck was fully loaded and was uphill and suddenly steering was got jammed, which caused the accident. However, no evidence in defence was led. At the end of the trial, respondent was acquitted of the offences charged on the ground that there was no cogent and credible evidence to bring home the guilt against the respondent. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and reappraised the evidence on record. The entire case of the prosecution hinges upon the testimony of the complainant Hardev Singh and his conductor Sansar Chand. PW-3 Hardev Singh stated that when his truck reached near Sainwala, a truck which was being driven by the respondent came from the opposite direction in a high speed and hit his vehicle, as a result of which he sustained injuries. At the site of accident, many shops were located and lot of persons had gathered there which fact has been admitted by PW-5 Sansar Chand. The police had also inquired from the persons present there about the cause of accident. He further stated that his tanker was empty. However, he 4 denied that because he was down-hill, speed of his vehicle was very high which caused the accident. PW-5 Sansar Chand, was the conductor with the complainant Hardev Singh. He has stated that their vehicle was stationary and it was the vehicle of the respondent, which struck against their vehicle. He has given contrary version that truck of the respondent was down-hill but he volunteered that their truck was uphill. However, he admitted that truck of the respondent was loaded with wires. Except these two witnesses, no other witness has been examined by the prosecution to substantiate the fact of accident. As noted above there is material contradiction in the statement of both these witnesses. The Investigating Officer has clearly stated that the truck of the respondent was loaded and was uphill. Learned trial court has rightly observed that while going from Paonta Sahib to Kala Amb it is down-hill and not uphill and further it has come in evidence that lot of people had gathered at the place of occurrence and their statements were recorded by the police but it is surprising that none of them have been examined to 5 lend strength to the case of the prosecution. The truck of the respondent was loaded and was going up-hill. This being so it cannot be said that the truck could be in high speed, otherwise also speed is no criteria to conclude the rash and negligent driving by the respondent but the complainant and his witness has only made the speed the main criteria to fasten the guilt on the respondent. Even though the defence raised by the respondent is not substantiated but in order to prove the offence against the accused, the prosecution cannot be relegated to prove the necessary ingredients of the offence charged. Therefore, in these circumstances, substantial doubt is created, the benefit of reasonable doubt was rightly given by the learned trial court to the respondent. As such, I do not find any thing, worth interference in the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. December 16, 2008 (Surinder Singh),J. (D) 6