IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.206 of 2002 Date of Decision: July 20, 2009 State of H.P. ..Appellant. Versus Vijay Kumar …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. Adarsh Vashisht, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J. (Oral) State has appealed against the judgment dated 27.9.2001 of learned trial Magistrate, whereby respondent Vijay Kumar, who was tried for offences, under Sections 279 and 304 IPC, has been acquitted. Prosecution’s case, as per evidence on record, may be stated thus. On 15.9.2000, PW1 Smt. Nirmala Devi and her 11 years old son Ajay Kumar (deceased) were standing by the side of the road leading from Amb to Gagret in front of Government Middle School, Kalruhi. Around 1.30 p.m., PW1 Smt. Nirmala Devi, asked her Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - deceased son to go to the school. When the child was crossing the road, a Tata 407-Tempo bearing registration No. HP-55-0717, appeared from Amb side and hit him. Child fell in the middle of the road and sustained head injury to which he succumbed, within no time. This was the version given in statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C., which PW1 Smt. Nirmala Devi made to PW8 Jaspal Singh, ASI. On the basis of this statement, case was formally registered. PW8 ASI Jaspal Singh, conducted the investigation and prepared site plan Ex.PW8/A. Mechanical test of the vehicle was got conducted. Inquest report Ex.PW8/C was prepared by PW8 Jaspal Singh. Dead-body was subjected to postmortem examination by Dr. Sudha Bhardwaj. Prosecution examined PW1 Nirmala Devi and one more witness, namely, PW2 Sukh Raj, as eye witness of the occurrence. Both of them stated that the deceased and PW1 Nirmala Devi were standing on the Kucha portion of the road opposite to the school when the vehicle, in question, came from Amb side and hit the child and then dragged him to a distance of 100 yards. Apparently, this version is contrary to the earliest version given to the police vide statement Ex.PW1/A. Learned trial Magistrate acquitted the accused because of this - 3 - contradiction and also for the reason that PW2 was not present on the spot when the incident had taken place I have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General, as also learned counsel for the respondent and gone through the evidence. There does not appear to be any reason for interfering with the judgment of the trial Court. As already noticed, while lodging the F.I.R. PW1 Nirmala Devi, stated that the child was crossing the road when he was hit by Tempo. In the Court, as PW1, she narrated a different story. She stated that she and the child were standing on the Kucha portion of the road opposite the school when a vehicle came from opposite side and hit her child and dragged him to a distance of 100 yards. This change in stand is probably for the reason that the child tried to cross the road, all of a sudden, without caring for vehicular traffic on the road. It has come in the testimony of PW1 Nirmala Devi herself that she and the child were standing with their back towards the school. That means that they had not seen the vehicle coming from Amb side when she asked the child to go the school. He obeyed her command, turned back and tried to cross the road. - 4 - PW2 Sukh Raj, does not appear to be a truthful witness, as his testimony is contrary not only to the earliest version given to the police but also some other material facts. Case of the prosecution is that the respondent had run away from the spot after causing accident and he was taken into custody on the next following day. However, PW2 Sukh Raj claimed that he apprehended the respondent when he stopped his vehicle at a distance of 100 yards from the place of occurrence and handed him over to the police. This is contrary to the prosecution version that the respondent had disappeared from the scene and was arrested only on the next following day. For the foregoing reasons, appeal is dismissed. July 20, 2009. (Surjit Singh), J s