IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA: Cr.A.No.319 of 2001. Date of Decision :18th March, 2008. State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus: Rakesh Kumar, …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for judgment?1 For the appellant: Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. Advocate General . For Respondent. Mr.Bhupinder Ahuja, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J(Oral). The present appeal arises out of the judgment dated 28th September, 2000 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.2, Hamirpur in Police Challan No. 17-11 of 1998 titled as State of H.P. Vs. Rakesh Kumar acquitting the accused of the charged offence under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. As per the case of the prosecution, on 19th May, 1997 at about 4.15 P.M. the accused, who was driving vehicle No. HP-02- 5704 on public highway at a place called Bhgetu, Police Station and District Hamirpur, H.P in a rash and negligent manner hit Bam Dev, Hari Singh, Roshan Lal and Puran Chand as a result of which they sustained simple and grievous injuries. Hari Singh got his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. recorded with the Police and F.I.R.No.108 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 (Ext.PW-8/A) was registered with Police Station, Hamirpur under Sections 279 and 337 I.P.C. The injured were taken to the Hospital for medical treatment who were examined by Dr. R.K.Sharma (PW-3). M.L.C. Ext.PW-3/B, Ext.PW-3/C, Ext.PW-3/E and Ext.PW-3/F pertaining to Bam Dev, Hari Singh, Roshan Lal and Puran Chand respectively and other medical reports Ext.PW-3/A and Ext.PW-3/D were taken on record by the Police. The vehicle was got mechanically examined in terms of mechanical report Ext.PW-4/A. With the completion of the investigation, challan was presented in the Court for trial. The accused was charged for an offence under Sections 279, 337 and 338 I.P.C. to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined nine witnesses and the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was also recorded. Considering the material in its entirety, the Court below acquitted the accused of the charged offence for the reason that the prosecution had not examined all the injured persons and the versions of PW-1 and PW-2, being spot witnesses could not be relied upon to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the material on record. Hari Singh (PW-1) is the complainant and Roshan Lal (PW-2) is the spot witness. These are the only two spot witnesses examined by the prosecution. Injured Bam Dev and Puran Chand have not been examined by the prosecution. 3 Perusal of the testimony of these two witnesses would show that except for a bald statement that the vehicle was being driven at a high speed with which they were hit. There is nothing to even suggest that the vehicle was being driven in rash and negligent manner. In fact, they have not even identified the accused to have driven the vehicle in question. Simply because the vehicle was being driven at high speed that fact by itself would not prove the complicity of the accused in the commission of the crime particularly when it has come that the incident occurred at a place where there was a blind curve and no one proved on record that it was the accused who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time. The testimony of Head Constable Krishan Kumar (PW-8) who investigated the matter is also silent on the identity of the accused. Through the statement of Dr. R.K.Sharma (PW-3) and Suresh Kumar (PW-5), it has come on record that Bam Dev, Hari Singh, Roshan Lal and Puran Chand respectively received injuries as per the M.L.C. which is on record. Purshotam Lal (PW-4) mechanically examined the vehicle and Hari Chand (PW-6) prepared the challan. Head Constable Manohar Lal (PW-7) recorded the statement of Hari Singh (PW-1) and Parkash Chand (PW-9) has witnessed the recovery of the vehicle vide seizure memo Ext. PW-8/C. Also from their statements it cannot be said that the accused was allegedly driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at the relevant time. In order to constitute an offence under Sections 279,337 and 338 I.P.C. it was incumbent upon the prosecution to show that the accused was driving the vehicle on public highway in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the human 4 life as a result of which PW-1 and PW-2 sustained simple and grievous injuries on their body. In the absence of any cogent, clear and reliable material, it cannot be said that the accused is guilty of the charged offence. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The accused had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. The material in its entirety has been appreciated and there is no perversity in the same. I see no reason to interfere with the finding and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds are discharged. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. March 18, 2008(R)