1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 691 of 2001. Date of Decision: 16-12-2008. ____________________________________________________________ State of H.P. Appellant. Versus Padam Singh and another. Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? Yes. For the appellant : Sh. J. S. Guleria, Law Officer. For respondents :Shri Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. _________________________________________________________ Surinder Singh, J. (oral) The respondents were tried and acquitted of the offences under Section 279, 337, 338, 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 188, 134 and 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, in Criminal case No. 93/2 of 1995, decided by learned trial Court on 2-5-2001. The acquittal of the respondents has been assailed in the present appeal on the ground that the learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence of the prosecution in the right perspective. In nut-shell, the case of the prosecution is that on 31-7-1995, at about 3.30 P.M, respondent Padam Singh was the Driver of the Mini Bus bearing registration No. HP-07-0902 which was going from Arki to Jai Nagar. There were about thirty five passengers in the Bus. Respondent Padma Singh drove the vehicle upto Batal Ghati and thereafter, he asked his co-accused Ranjit Singh respondent to drive the Bus. It is alleged that Ranjit Singh drove the bus at a very high speed despite intervention by the passengers. Respondent Padam Singh told the Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 passengers that he was an expert Driver but while crossing Jobri Khud, it over- turned and fell 80 feet down in a gorge resulting into death of one passenger and injuries to about 16 others. The Police was informed about the accident by PW3 Daulat Ram. The case was registered the case under the aforesaid Sections against the respondents and Police visited the spot. Post mortem of the dead-body was got conducted and injured passengers were medically examined. The police prepared the site plan Exhibit PW14/A and also took the photographs. After recording the statements of the witnesses, the challan was presented in the Court for the trial of the respondents. At the end of the trial, the respondents were acquitted on the ground that there were contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. Majority of the witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution. Further, there was nothing in the evidence on record to show that out of the respondents, who was driving the bus and was responsible for the accident. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties. I have also re- appraised the evidence adduce d by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the respondents. PW2, PW4 to 9 and PW11 have either not supported the case of the prosecution or nothing material was deposed by them to implicate the respondents for the offences charged. In so far as the other witnesses are concerned, out of them, PW1 Roop Dei has stated that in the said accident, she sustained the injuries and according to her, Padam Singh respondent was driving the vehicle in a normal speed like any other Driver. She did not know as to how the accident had taken place. PW3 Daulat Ram complainant was the another passenger in the Bus. He has not stated anything about the initial report lodged by him on which the prosecution had built its case. He has totally deviated from his earlier version. According to him, one passenger was sitting on the engine of the bus and engaged 3 the respondent-Driver Padam Singh in talks. He has categorically stated that there was nothing wrong in driving the bus by its Driver. He has admitted having given the statement in the case because he has filed a claim petition in the Court at Solan. PW13 Roshni Devi has stated that she did not know as to out of the respondents who was the driver at the relevant time but its driver was correctly driving the bus. In his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Padam Singh stated that the accident took place due to the bursting of the break- pipe, which resulted into its failure and this fact finds corroboration from the statement of PW12, the mechanic who had examined the vehicle in question. He has admitted that the break pipe line of the bus was found broken which fact was mentioned by him in his report Exhibit PW12/A. Thus the defence raised stands probablised. On culling the evidence on record, I find no legal evidence to convert the acquittal of the respondents into conviction. The evidence discussed above does not meet the warp and woof of the prosecution case. Therefore the learned trial Court rightly acquitted the respondents for the offences aforesaid. Accordingly, the appeal sans merit and is dismissed. (Surinder Singh) Judge. December 16, 2008. (bm)