IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. A. No. 369 of 1996 Decided on: 23.2.2010 State of H.P. ..…Appellant Versus Shyam Lal & another ..…Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant A.G. For the respondent : Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate. Surinder Singh,J. (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. The respondent No. 1 Shyam Lal was driver of HRTC bus bearing registration No. HP-18-3501 and respondent No. 2 its conductor. Both the respondents were tried and acquitted by the learned trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. In nut shell, the prosecution story can be stated thus. On 13th August 1991 at about 2.15 P.M. the HRTC bus was being driven by the respondent No. 1 and it was on its way 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 from Solan to Salogra wherein the deceased, who was student, was also traveling. When it reached Salogra, some of the passengers got down and when the deceased Sunil Kumar was deboarding, he fell down and run over by the said bus under the rear tyre. He was immediately taken to the hospital for treatment but later died. PW6 Sohan Lal reported the matter to the police. Police visited the spot, prepared the site plan and recorded the statements of the witnesses. After completing challan it was presented in the Court for the trial of the respondents. The learned Trial Court took note of the statements of PW6 Sohan Lal and PW7 Susheel Sharma who were the alleged eye witnesses. They stated that when the bus in question was in the process of stopping some of the passengers got down and the deceased boy also stepped down from the moving vehicle which caused this accident. The other witnesses had only seen the accident after there was a commotion. So two views appeared on the record and the learned trial Court gave the benefit of the view favorable to the. I have gone through the statements of both theses witnesses. PW7 Susheel Sharma stated that the respondent No. 2 conductor blew the whistle to stop the bus at Salogra, when the bus was in the process of stopping and had not completely stopped, the deceased boy through the front door got down, fell on the ground and came under the rear tyre. He was corroborated with his earlier version recorded by the police under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but adhered to the aforesaid version which was also spoken of by 3 PW6 complainant Sohan Lal. Even PW10 Dalip Kumar has also lent corroboration. PW5 Surjit Singh was not an eye witness but he was attracted by the commotion after the accident. Thus, from the evidence led by the prosecution, the learned trial Court rightly gave the benefit of the version favorable to the accused for recording their acquittal. Otherwise also, from the facts and the statements of the case as it appears in the evidence of the prosecution, I do not find that the respondents were in any way having in any nexus with the death of the boy as he himself was responsible for it, he should not have taken the risk of de-boarding from a moving bus which was in the process of halting. He did it at his own peril. Therefore, findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court are borne out from the record. Appeal sans merits hence dismissed. (Surinder Singh), Judge. February 23, 2010 (vs)