IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No.58 of 2002 Date of decision: 8.4.2009. State of H.P. ….Appellant. Versus Ashwani Kumar. ……Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the appellant: Mr. J.S.Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. For respondent. None. Surinder Singh, J(Oral). The acquittal of the respondent has been assailed by the State by filing the instant appeal on the grounds that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record in a right manner. I have heard Sh. J.S.Guleria, learned Assistant Advocate General and have carefully gone through the evidence on record. However, none appeared on behalf of the respondent. In short, the case of the prosecution is that on 13.1.1996 the respondent was the driver of bus No. HP-19-2487 belonging to ‘Jai Mata Travellers’ Sh. Bachitter Singh (deceased) was deaf and mute since his birth. It is alleged that when he alighted from the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes. 2 Punjab Roadways bus at about 5 pm. in village Sanot, he was going on foot to his house, a bus No.HP-19- 2487 being driven by the respondent came from the side of Jwalamukhi in a high speed. The rear portion of the bus hit Sh. Bachitter Singh as a result of which he fell down and sustained grievous injuries on his person. He was immediately taken to Sub Divisional Hospital, Dehra. He had sustained the fracture of legs and other serious injuries. He was referred to Zonal Hospital, Dharamshala but died on the way before reaching Dharamshala. PW-3 Sh. Puran Chand, Shopkeeper, who is alleged to have witnessed the accident, informed the police. His statement (Ext.PW1/A) was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. on the basis of which a formal F.I.R. was registered. During the investigation of this case, the police prepared the site plan (Ext.PW-5/B) and also obtained medico legal certificate of Bachitter Singh. After his death, the post mortem of his body was performed. The report is Exhibit PB. On completing the investigation, the challan was presented in the Court for trial of the respondent under Sections 279 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Finding a prima facie case, against the respondent, notice of accusation was framed and put by the learned trial Court under Section 304-A of the 3 Indian Penal Code to which the respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove its case, the prosecution examined its witnesses and the respondent was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The defence of the respondent was that the deceased was habitual of drinking. At the time of the occurrence he was under the influence of liquor and could not control himself, thus he fell down on the road and suffered injuries due to fall. On appreciating the evidence on record, at the end of the trial the respondent was acquitted and the acquittal of the respondent has been challenged in this appeal. PW-3 Sh.Puran Chand is the complainant and brother of deceased Bachitter Singh. He has only stated that the bus in question was at the high speed of about 60 Kms. per hour which came from Jwalamukhi side, at that time he was standing out side his shop. There was also a heap of grit on the kachha portion of the road and the bus was taken by the respondent to one side, the bumper of the bus hit Bachitter Singh as a result he fell down and sustained injuries. Thereafter he informed the police about the accident. In cross examination he stated that Bachitter Singh was neither a drunkard nor had consumed liquor. But it is pertinent to note that in his statement recorded under Section 4 154 Cr.P.C. (Ext.PW-1/A), he categorically stated that Bachitter Singh struck against the rear portion of the bus while crossing the road. PW-6 Sh.Vipan Kumar another eye witness categorically stated that the deceased was drunk and he was stumbling while walking and hit the rear portion of the bus opposite to the driver-side which fact is substantiated by F.I.R. The fact of consumption of liquor also stands corroborated by the medico legal certificate (Ext.PC). The rash or negligent act of the respondent in causing the accident is not proved. The facts proved on record give rise to a reasonable suspicion that the deceased himself was under the influence of liquor and while walking he was stumbling, hit the rear portion of the bus with the result he fell down and sustained injuries with no fault of the respondent. Therefore, the prosecution could not prove the case against the respondent beyond a reasonable doubt. As such the learned trial Court rightly acquitted the respondent by giving the benefit of doubt and the conclusion arrived at for such a finding is borne out from the record which requires no interference. As such the appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. (Surinder Singh), Judge. April 8,2009(R)