IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No.656 of 2002 Date of decision : July 7, 2009 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Surinder Singh …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. R.P. Singh, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (oral) State has appealed against the judgment, dated 10th October, 2001, of learned Trial Magistrate, whereby respondent Surinder Singh, who was tried for offences, punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, has been acquitted. 2. Case of the prosecution is like this. On 31st August, 1995, around 12 in the noon, respondent was driving Maruti Van No.PAC-4464, on Mandi-Pathankot National Highway, at a place called Nagni, in a rash or negligent manner, as a result of which the vehicle hit deceased Makoru Ram. The vehicle was being driven on the wrong side and also at a fast speed. 3. Matter was reported to the police by PW-1 Maghar Singh, who is a son of deceased Makoru Ram. PW-1 Maghar Singh was not present on the spot, when the accident took Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… place. Case was investigated. Four witnesses came forward to say that they had seen the accident taking place and that the cause of the accident was rash driving of the Van by the respondent. 4. Trial Court put substance of accusation to the respondent and proceeded to try him, when he pleaded not guilty. At the end of the trial, respondent was acquitted. 5. Prosecution examined four persons, as eye- witnesses. They are PW-2 Diwan Singh, PW-3 Sunit Singh, PW-4 Thuru Ram and PW-5 Harnam Singh. 6. PW-2 Diwan Singh stated that the vehicle appeared from Jassur side, at a very fast speed, and that when it reached a culvert, known as Nagni Mata, it struck against something and that when he went running to the site, he saw that the Van had struck against a Tahli tree and deceased Makoru Ram was also lying injured near the Van. The witness stated that Sunit Singh and Harnam Singh were also present with him, when the accident took place. He stated that the vehicle went to its wrong side and hit the tree. He denied, in the cross- examination, that he had told the police in his statement, under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Mark ‘A’, with which he was duly confronted, that the accident took place because deceased Makoru Ram had been crossing the road. PW-3 Sunit Singh stated that the vehicle was being driven at moderate speed. According to him, the speed was 30-35 kms per hour. He stated that he did not know if the accident took place for no fault of the driver. Also, he stated that the accident …3… took place when the respondent tried to save deceased Makoru Ram, who was crossing the road. PW-4 Thuru Ram stated that he was working in his shop, near the site of the accident and he came to know about the accident only after it had occurred. PW-5 Harnam Singh stated that the vehicle was being driven at a fast speed. The witness stated that deceased Makoru Ram was crossing the road, when the accident took place. However, he could not tell what was the speed. 7. As already noticed, about the speed of the vehicle PW-3 Sunit Singh has categorically stated that it was only 30-35 kms per hour. Admittedly, the vehicle was moving on a National Highway and, therefore, speed of 30-35 kms per hour cannot be said to be excessive or very fast. It has come in the evidence that accident took place when deceased Makoru Ram tried to cross the road. It has also come in the evidence that the driver tried to save deceased Makoru Ram and took the vehicle to his extreme right hand side, as a result of which the vehicle rammed into a Tahli tree. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that trial Court’s judgment of acquittal is patently illegal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. July 7, 2009(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J