IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.A.No.178 of 2001 Reserved on 3.1.2008 Date of decision 7.1.2008 State of H.P. Appellant Versus Kanwar Singh Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellant : Mr. M.A.Khan, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate, Rajiv Sharma, J. The respondent was prosecuted in a Criminal Case No.8-2 of 1999 under Section 304-A IPC in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.2, Rohru and was acquitted on 31.7.2000. The State has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 31.7.2000. The facts in nutshell are that on 14.7.1999 the complainant Shri Vinod Sharma got his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. recorded, mentioning therein that he was employed on daily wages as Pump Operator in I.P.H. pump house at village Jakhar. One Sajay Kumar (deceased) was also employed as part time Beldar-cum-helper. On 14.7.1997 he along with Sanjay Kumar (deceased) reported on duty at 9 a.m. when accused-respondent had gone to his house after duty hours. He along with Sanjay Kumar (deceased) at 12.15 p.m. went inside the second room being used by Chowkidar for sleeping. When they sat on the cot they found muzzle loading gun present there which was removed by 1 Whether reporter of local papers is allowed to see the judgment? No 2 Sanjay Kumar (deceased). The complainant told Sanjay Kumar (deceased) not to fiddle with the gun. But Sanjay Kumar (deceased) took the gun outside while complainant started reading a novel in the said room. He heard the noise of fire and saw Sanjay Kumar (deceased) lying in a pool of blood in the garden. Consequently, the police was informed and on the basis of the statement of the complainant FIR was registered against the accused. The prosecution had produced and examined six witnesses in all. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. The trial court acquitted the respondent on 31.7.2000. Mr. M.A.Khan, learned Deputy Advocate General had strenuously argued that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused. He then contended that the trial court has not correctly appreciated the evidence led by the prosecution which has led to grave miscarriage of justice. Mr. Romesh Verma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent had supported the judgment of the trial court dated 31.7.2000. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case carefully. PW-1 Vinod Sharma has admitted in his cross-examination that he was not aware as to whether the gun was empty or loaded. He did not see the ammunition/pellets in the gun. According to him the accused had already left during the day time. According to him deceased Sanjay Kumar picked up the gun from the adjoining room of the Chowkidar and started fiddling with it. It has also come in evidence that despite complainant’s objecting to it, Sanjay Kuamr (deceased) took the gun outside and after some time he heard the noise of fire. PW-2 Ahmad Khan was not on the spot when the incident took place. He has only stated that he saw Sanjay Kumar (deceased) lying in a pool of blood. PW-3 Keshav Ram has deposed that he was intimated by PW-2 and Dinesh Kumar that his son Sanjay Kumar (deceased) had been injured. PW-4 Nagru has stated that there are two rooms one room is being used by Chowkidar as his residence and in another room there is machinery. PW-6 ASI Bhagirath 3 has admitted in his cross-examination that the possibility of the deceased himself loading the gun as well as his negligence in the present case could not be ruled out. It has not come in evidence that accused had kept the loaded gun in the room. It has also come in the evidence that the accused had already left the house when the complainant and deceased had reached after performing their duties. It is thus evident from combined reading of the evidence that it appears to be a case of accidental fire resulting in the death of deceased Sanjay Kumar. The trial court had adopted correct process of reasoning. Consequently, the judgment passed by the trial court calls for no interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. January 7,2008 (g) ( Rajiv Sharma ), J.