IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.A.No.186 of 2001 Reserved on 4.1.2008 Date of decision 10.1.2008 State of H.P. Appellant Versus Ramesh Kumar Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mr.M.A.Khan and Ms.Meenakshi Sharma, Dy. Advocate Generals. For the respondent: Mr.Ajay Sharma, Advocate, Rajiv Sharma, J. The respondents were prosecuted in a Criminal Case No. 14-II/99 under Sections 279, 337 the I.P.C. read with Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.2, Dehra and have been acquitted on 18.10.2000. The present appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment dated 18.10.2000. The facts which can be culled out from the judgment of the trial court are that on 24.3.1999 the complainant and his father Bharat Singh were coming from Land Acquisition Officer’s office Dehra to their home. At 2.15 p.m. when they reached near senior Secondary School Boys, Bharat Singh was knocked down by a speeding scooter bearing registration No.HP-36-2223. The scooter was being driven by the accused. Bharat Singh sustained injuries and he was removed to the Sub Divisional Hospital, Dehra. The matter was reported to the police and consequently FIR No.28/99 was recorded on 24.3.1999. The prosecution 1 Whether reporter of local papers is allowed to see the judgment? No 2 has examined as many as six witnesses. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. The accused was acquitted on 18.10.2000. Hence, this appeal. The learned Deputy Advocate General had strenuously argued that the prosecution has proved the case against the respondent. He further contended that the trial court had misinterpreted the evidence on record, resulting in miscarriage of justice. Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents had supported the judgment dated 18.10.2000. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. Complainant Jagdish Singh has stepped into the witness box as PW-1. He has admitted that his father was accompanied by 4 or 5 persons to Sub Divisional Hospital but he could not disclose the names of those persons. He also admitted that his father was following him when the accident took place on 24.3.1999. If the scooter was being driven rashly or negligently by the accused in normal circumstances it would have hit the complainant first and not Bharat Singh. Bharat Singh has not been examined as a witness. It is evident from M.L.C. Ex. PF that Bharat Singh has only received simple injuries. It has come in the evidence that Bharat Singh was aged about 91 years. It is a fact that the faculties of a man above the age of 91 years gets impaired and the possibility cannot be ruled out that Bharat Singh on seeing the scooter got confused which resulted in accident dated 24.3.1999. Consequently the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the respondent. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. January 10, 2008 (g) ( Rajiv Sharma ), J