IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No. 656 of 2000. Judgment reserved on: 3.3.2008 Date of decision: 4.3.2008 State of H.P. …….Appellant Vs. Shankar Dass …. Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. J.R. Poswal, Advocate Kuldip Singh, Judge. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of acquittal dated 25.4.2000 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, acquitting the respondent in FIR No.116 of 1998 Ex.PW-5/E dated 15.7.1998, registered at Police Station, Bilaspur under Sections 279, 304-A IPC. 2. The facts in brief are that respondent was prosecuted under Sections 279, 304-A IPC, for rash and negligent driving of truck No.HP-24-1895 and thereby causing accident on 15.7.1998, which resulted into injuries to Kumari Jyoti, who later on died. The further Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?yes …2… facts are that at the relevant date and time the respondent was driving the truck towards Bilaspur near Raghunathpura. On reaching near village Kunala the respondent while rashly and negligently driving the truck , crushed Kumari Jyoti under the truck resulting in her death. On the statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW-1/A of Ram Lal, father of the deceased an FIR Ex.PW5/E came to be registered against the respondent. After completion of the investigation, challan was put up against the respondent. Notice of accusation was put to the respondent under Sections 279, 304/A IPC ,who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined six witnesses. The statement of respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the prosecution case. No evidence was led by the respondent in defence. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the respondent as noticed above, hence this appeal. 3. I have heard Mr. A.K. Bansal, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State and Mr. J.R. Poswal, learned counsel for the respondent and gone through the record. The learned Addl. Advocate General has submitted that prosecution has proved the case against the respondent, who rashly and negligently drove truck No. HP-24-1895 at the relevant time and date and crushed Kumari Jyoti resulting her death. On behalf of the respondent, it has been submitted that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the accident due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the respondent. It has …3… been submitted that accident has taken place due to mechanical defect. 4. PW-1 Ram Lal is the father of the deceased, he has stated that he was at his residence. At about 7 P.M. on that date his daughter was going towards the left side of the road. He heard the cries of his daughter, he ran towards the place from where he heard the cries and saw his daughter was lying on the road on the left side and the tyre of the truck has crushed her legs and the truck was found stationary at a little distance away. The truck was bearing registration No.HP-24-1895. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent who was driving the truck. In cross-examination he has stated that his house is a little bit below the road and he went to the spot after hearing the cries. He did not see the truck while coming. PW-2 Prem Lal in his examination-in- chief has stated that the truck came in high speed and crushed the girl as a result of which her legs were fractured. The respondent was driving the truck and accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving on his part. In cross-examination he has stated that he has not given the statement A to A of mark -X . PW-5 Rajinder Pal ASI has stated that Ex.PW-5/D which was earlier mark-X is the statement of Prem Lal. The perusal of portion A to A of Ex.PW-5/D would show that in his earlier statement to the police, Prem Lal has stated that he came to know that Kumari Jyoti met with an accident on NH-21 after some time she left her house. He is not an eye witness to the accident. PW-3 Krishan Ram has given very vague …4… statement regarding the accident. He has stated that he was sitting in the courtyard, the girl was crushed by the speeding truck which was being driven by the respondent. In cross-examination he has stated that the portion mark-Y of the statement wherein it has been mentioned that he reached the spot on hearing the cries has been written wrongly. In his cross-examination he has stated that Ram Lal is his nephew. The house of Ram Lal is below the road and from there road is not visible and on hearing the cries he went to the road. He reached there in two minutes, Prem Lal his brother was with him. He (Prem Lal) was also sitting in his house. He (Krishan Ram) was sitting in his courtyard. PW-2 and PW-3 are the real brothers. On perusal of portion A to A of statement Ex.PW-5/D of Prem Lal would show that he reached the spot after the accident. PW-3 has stated that Prem Lal PW-2 was accompanying him when he reached the spot. In other words PW-3 Krishan Ram is also not an eye witness to the accident. 5. The spot map Ex.PW-5/A would show that truck was going on its left side. The prosecution has proved the mechanical report Ex.PW-1/A of truck No.HP-24-1895 which was involved in the accident. In the mechanical report Ex.PW-1/A it has been stated that right side rear wheel of the truck was found to have less brake at the time of examination. Due to this on applying the brakes the truck dragged towards left side. It has been stated in the report that accident took place due to less brakes on the right side of the rear wheel of the truck. The prosecution has not examined any other eye …5… witness. The prosecution has not proved the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the respondent. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has drawn proper inference from the material on record. No case for interference has been made out, hence appeal dismissed. Bail bonds of the respondent are discharged. ( Kuldip Singh ) Judge. March 4, 2008 (sks)