IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.665 of 2001 Decided on: August 22, 2008. State of H.P. …Appellant Versus Balraj Singh …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General with Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajit Jaswal, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) State has appealed against the judgment of trial Magistrate, whereby respondent Balraj Singh, who was tried for offences, punishable under Sections 279 and 337, has been acquitted. 2. Respondent was put on trial for the aforesaid offences, on the allegation that on 5.9.1998 at 3.30 PM, he was driving bus No. HP-20-1488, near Sorabh Service Station at Una, when a scooter bearing registration No.PB-08-3643, which was being driven by PW-2 Vijay Kumar, appeared from the opposite direction. Respondent allegedly turned the bus towards the scoter, without slowing down the speed and the bus hit the scooter, as a result of which PW-2 Vijay Kumar fell down alongwith the scooter and sustained certain injuries. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… Pw-2 Vijay Kumar was taken to the hospital by the respondent in the aforesaid bus. At 6 PM PW-2 Vijay Kumar made a statement to the police, under Section 154 Cr. P.C. on the basis of which case was formally registered. 3. Prosecution examined PW-2 Vijay Kumar and PW-3 Shiv Kumar, to prove the allegation that the cause of accident was rash or negligent driving of bus by the respondent. PW-2 Vijay Kumar stated that on the fateful day he was coming on his scooter from Hoshiarpur and that when around 3.30 PM he reached near Sorabh Service Station at Una, a bus being driven by the respondent came from the opposite direction at a very fast speed and all of a sudden it turned towards his scooter and knocked him down. He denied the suggestion put to him, in the cross-examination, that the bus did not appear from the opposite direction, but it was being reversed near the site of the accident, after it came out from the Service Station and that on seeing the bus he got perplexed and fell alongwith his scooter. He, however, admitted that the bus turned towards the Service Station, when he reached at the site of the accident, which is in front of the said Service Station. This admission of PW-2 Vijay Kumar, the injured, to some extent probabilized the defence plea. 4. PW-3 Shiv Kumar, examined by the prosecution as an eye witness, appears to have been introduced to seek corroboration to the testimony of PW-2 Vijay Kumar. This witness stated that he was following the injured on his own scooter. It is also stated by him that injured was known to …3… him for the last 30-32 years as they hail from the same place and had been studying together in the same school. At the same time, he admits that he did not accompany PW-2 Vijay Kumar to the hospital and that it was very late in the evening that he went to the hospital to enquire about his well being. This conduct of PW-3 Shiv Kumar is unnatural, when he claims himself to be a childhood friend of the injured. His conduct suggests that he did not see the accident nor was he present there and that is why he did not accompany the injured to the hospital. 5. In view of the above stated position, I do not consider this to be a fit case for interfering with the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Magistrate. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. August 22, 2008 (ss) ( Surjit Singh ), J.