HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.A. No. : 573 of 2003 Decided on: 10.9.2010 State of H.P. ……… Appellant. Versus Rajinder Kumar ………Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellant: Mr.J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr.Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J.(Oral): This is an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P., dated 16.7.2003, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the notice of accusation put to him for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the IPC. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 15.11.1999, at about 9.50 a.m., a statement of complainant Yuv Raj Sharma was recorded at the spot by a police officer in which he had alleged that on 15.11.1999, he alongwith his wife Suman Sharma were going on their scooter bearing No.HP- 37-2841. At about 9.30 a.m., when the scooter reached near Binwa Bridge, an HRTC bus bearing No.HP-39-3922 came at a fast speed and tried to overtake his scooter. Resultantly, the head of his wife struck with the rear ___________________________________________ Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - portion of the bus, who died at the spot. He alleged that he did not sustain any injuries. He also alleged that the accident had taken place at the spot due to the rash or negligent driving of the bus driver, who had run away from the spot. On this report, a case was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed before the learned trial Court, who tried the respondent for the offences mentioned above leading to his acquittal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 4. On appraisal of the evidence led by the prosecution, it is clear that the learned trial Court had only observed that it is the duty of the prosecution to establish their case and accordingly it passed the judgment of acquittal, without discussing the evidence of the complainant, which was very material and as to whether it proved the case of the prosecution or not. There is practically no discussion of the statement of the complainant, who has stated the facts and he was the main witness examined by the prosecution since he was driving the scooter, which had been, allegedly, hit by the respondent. Apart from this, the learned trial Court even did not discuss the statement of the Investigating Officer. The conclusions have been drawn by the learned trial Court and it did not give any finding as to why the statement of the complainant was not being relied upon. 5. In view of the above discussion, it cannot be said to be a judgment in the eye of law since the statement of the complainant, who was the most material witness, was - 3 - not discussed at all and no observations were made as to why the statement was not being relied upon. Coupled with this, the statement of the Investigating Officer was also not discussed and as such I am unable to draw any conclusion as to whether the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are perverse and call for an interference or not. Once there is some discussion and there are findings as well, then only this Court can infer whether the conclusions drawn by the learned trial Court were perverse or not. 6. In view of the above discussion, I hold that it is fit case where the case is to be remanded back to the learned trial Court for hearing the parties afresh and give its findings accordingly after discussing the whole evidence led by the prosecution as well as by the respondent, if any. The appeal filed by the State of H.P. is accepted, the judgment passed by the learned trial Court is set aside and the case is remanded to the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Baijnath, who shall rehear the parties and pass judgment accordingly. The learned trial Court shall try to dispose of the case on or before 31.12.2010. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 19.10.2010. The Registry is directed to send the records of the case alongwith a copy of this judgment to the learned trial Court forthwith. September 10, 2010. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge