1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No.726 of 2002. Decided on: July 6, 2009. State of H.P. …Appellant. VERSUS Tilak Raj ….Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice R.B.Misra, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr P.K.Sharma, Addl.A.G. and Mr.P.M.Negi, Dy.A.G. For the respondent: Mr R. Maniktala, Advocate. R.B.Misra, Judge (Oral): Heard Mr.P.K.Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant/State and Mr.R. Maniktala, learned counsel for respondent. 2. The present criminal appeal has arisen consequent upon granting leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in reference to impugned judgment dated 17.6.2002, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No.2, Palampur, District Kangra, in Criminal case No. 66-II/2000 for the alleged involvement of the accused-respondent, under sections 279, Whether the reporters of the local papers maybe allowed to see the judgment? 2 337 and 338 IPC, acquitting the alleged accused/ respondent. 3. In order to adjudicate the present criminal appeal, it is necessary to summarize the prosecution case in brief. On 15.10.1999 at about 6.30 PM, alleged accused while driving scooter No. HP -39- 2602 on a public road and had hit the pedestrian Balwant Raj, who sustained simple as well as grievous injuries in person. In reference to the statement of injured Balwant Raj, FIR Ext PW-7/A was registered by Police Station, Palampur. Case was investigated by PW-9 S.I. Megh Nath, who had prepared the site plan Ext PW-9/B of spot occurrence and into took possession scooter along with documents vide memo Ext PW-5/A. I.O. had obtained the mechanical report of scooter in question. Ex PW-2/A issued by PW-2 Sunil Kumar, Mechanic. MLC of injured Balwant Raj Ext PW3/B was also procured. After completion of the investigation, police has presented the challan against the said accused-respondent under sections 279, 337 and 338 I.P.C. 4. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses. PW-1 is Balwant Raj- complainant and injured, PW-2 is Sunil Kumar-Mechanic, PW- 3 is Dr. G.C. Sood, who has issued MLC Ex PW3/B of injured Balwant Raj, PW-4 is Surinder Paul- eyewitness, PW-5 is Sushil Kumar-who has signed memo Ex PW5/A, as witness, PW-6 is Kartar Chand-eyewitness, PW-7 is Inspector Dharam 3 Chand who has recorded FIR, PW-8 is S.I. Narveer Singh who has prepared challan and PW-9 is S.I. Megh Nath-the investigating officer. Whereas the alleged accused person has denied the prosecution case in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 5. On the basis of material on record, following two points were framed for determination. The first point was answered in negative and in reference to second point accused/respondent was acquitted for the alleged offence. 1. Whether it is proved on record that on 15.10.99 at about 6.30 p.m. at place Chimbalhaar, accused was found driving Scooter No. HP-39-2602 on a public road in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and public property of others and hit the said scooter against a pedestrian namely Balwant Raj and caused simple as well as grievous injuries in his person and accused has committed offence punishable U/s 279, 337 and 338 IPC.?. 2. Final order. 6. I have gone through the averments, documents, testimonies of prosecution witnesses and material on record. It may be noticed that the prosecution has examined the complainant and injured Balwant Raj as PW-1. PW-1 has deposed that the said scooter has hit him whereby he sustained injuries, whereas, in cross examination, the said witness has given different story by saying that the alleged accused ran away from the spot and as there was pitch dark, due to that reason he could not identify the accused at the 4 relevant time. The said PW-1 has also deposed that people have told him about the accused and accordingly he has divulged the name of the accused to the police. As such different story is emanating from the testimony of PW-1 as he could not identify the alleged accused due to darkness and has divulged the name of alleged accused on the information told by the people. PW-1 has also not stated that the alleged accused was driving the scooter, whereas PW-4, Suridner Pal has deposed that he has apprehended the accused on spot and thereafter he along with accused and Kartar took the complainant Balwant Raj to hospital. Whereas PW-1, Balwant Raj has no where stated that he was taken to hospital by the alleged accused. PW-1 has also not stated any where in his testimony that the accused was apprehended on the spot by his brother PW-4, Surinder Paul, PW-4 has deposed that the accused ran way from the spot and there was no darkness on the relevant spot. Different version has been coming from the testimony of PW- 4. PW-4 has also given a different story that the scooter was being driven in neutral condition which shows that this witness had given different version contrary to the case of the prosecution, so much so, when PW-4 in his cross examination has deposed differently by saying that the alleged accused got identified in the identification parade as the alleged accused was apprehended by the police and got 5 identified through him. PW-9 SI Megh Nath has also no where stated that any identification parade was conducted by the police. Statement of PW-4, as such in respect of identification parade of alleged accused, has not been corroborated by other evidences. 7. It appears from the testimony of PW-6 Kartar Chand that after hearing noise when he reached the spot, alleged accused was present on the spot, whereas in cross examination PW-6 has deposed that he along with Surinder and alleged accused went to hospital, whereas, PW-1 Balwant Raj has deposed that the accused ran away from the spot and he could not identify the alleged accused at the relevant time due to darkness. As such, a different version is emanating from the testimony of PW-6 regarding availability of alleged accused on the spot and his being recognized even when there was darkness at the relevant time, where as, PW-4, Surinder Paul has denied the factum of darkness. PW-1 Balwant Raj has no where stated that PW-6 Kartar Chand reached on spot at the relevant time and took him to hospital for medical aid. PW-6 has deposed to the extent that he could not see the scooter coming from opposite side due to darkness which shows that this witness has again deposed different version contrary to the facts of the prosecution case. There are several lapses on the part of Investigation officer and that may not affect the 6 prosecution case. Many lapses on the part of PW-9 has been noticed and which have been analyzed in Paragraph 12 of the judgment passed by learned trial court. 8. I have no occasion to find any illegality in the said analysis and in the inference drawn by learned trial court by saying that the prosecution has failed to link the accused with the scooter in question involved in the accident. Keeping in view the inconsistencies and discrepancies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and material on record, learned trial court has correctly arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and has rightly given the benefit of doubt to the accused and has rightly found that the accused is not guilty for which he was charged. 8. In view of the above discussion / analysis, there appears to be no illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. Bail bond furnished by the accused / respondent is hereby discharged. July 6 2009. ( R.B.Misra ) (sl) Judge