IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 512/2000 Date of decision: 22. 2. 2011 State of H.P. …..Appellant Versus Gopal Dass ……Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 . For the Appellant: Mr. A.K. Bansal, Additional Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. Naresh Sharma vice Sh. Ashok Sharma, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J. (Oral) Acquittal of the respondent passed in criminal case No. 60/2 of 1996 decided on 22.7.1999 by the learned trial Court has been assailed in the present appeal. 2. Heard and gone through the record. 3. In short, prosecution story can be stated thus. On 22.5.1996, at about 9 a.m., labourers of the Public Works Department were at work at the place known as “dohri” on Shimla Mandi State Highway. A Police Gypsy bearing registration No. HP03-0575 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes - 2 - which was being driven by the respondent came from Shimla side and it is alleged that respondent was driving it rashly or negligently and hit PW3 Bansi Ram, a PW labourer who was having a load of stones thereby causing grievous injury to his legs, his MLC is Ext. PW7/A. 4. The case was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 Indian Penal Code. Police got the injured medically examined and also prepared the site plan and took photographs of the place of incident. Mechanical report of the alleged offending vehicle was also obtained. 5. Finding a prima facie case against the respondent, notice of accusation was put by the learned trial Court to the respondent for the offences aforesaid to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. Prosecution examined its witnesses and respondent was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He denied the rash or negligent act of driving and pleaded innocence. 7. No evidence in defence was led. 8. At the end of the trial, respondent was acquitted on the ground that from the evidence on - 3 - record, it transpired that DIG (Home Guard), was also traveling in the same vehicle. He would have thrown light on the actual facts. He was a material witness. He was not examined, an adverse inference was drawn. Further that the alleged act of rash or negligent driving of respondent was not proved as witnesses examined did not depose anything about it. 9. PW3 Bansi Ram, injured labourer stated that at the relevant time, he was carrying stones on both the shoulders and he could not see left and right and his back was towards the alleged vehicle. Pertinently, he also stated that the vehicle in question was being driven on the left side of the road and that he struck against the vehicle. 10. PW4 and PW5 although stated that respondent was responsible for the said accident but did not particularly pin-point as to what was rash or negligent act of driving of respondent which is sine qua non to attract the application of the offences charged against. His statement also suffers from that of same vice as that of the victim. 11. The Statement of the Investigating Officer is also worth mentioning. In his cross-examination, he admitted that Deputy Inspector General was also - 4 - traveling in the same vehicle at the relevant time. It is not understood as to why prosecution kept away such a Senior Officer from making him a witness. He could have thrown light on the facts to arrive at truth. 12. The defence raised is that Bansi Ram fell on the road and sustained injuries with the stones which he was carrying and it has been probablised by the doctor. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the acquittal of the respondent requires no interference. As such the appeal is dismissed. 14. Respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him at any time during the proceedings of this case. Send down the record. February 22, 2011 (Surinder Singh), (cm) Judge.