IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.335 of 2001 Date of decision:9 .7.2008 ______________________________________________________ State of H.P. Appellant. Versus Yog Raj Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No For the appellants: Ms. Subh Mahajan, Dy. Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr.O.P. Sharma, Advocate. V.K.Ahuja, J (oral). This appeal has been filed by the State of H.P. against the judgment of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala dated 10.11.2000, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the charge framed against him under Sections 279,337,338 and 304-A IPC and Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 25.3.1995 at 9.15 A.M, the respondent was reversing his truck No.HP-31-1107 at Andreta Bazar and, while reversing the truck one Bhonku Ram was run over and suffered injuries, was removed to the hospital and he died later on. On this, a report was made by the son of the deceased, namely PW-5 Birodhi Ram. The case was registered, leading to the filing of the challan as against the respondent who was tried by the learned trial Court resulting in acquittal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes It is clear that the prosecution had examined 10 witnesses to substantiate their case and, out of these 10 witnesses, the most material witnesses can be said to be PWs1, 4 and 5, who were the eye witnesses. PW-1 Bakshi Chand has stated that the respondent reversed the truck at a fast speed and while reversing the truck Bhonku Ram was run over by the truck. However, in the cross- examination, he clearly stated that he did not see the truck striking against Bhonku Ram and he went to the spot only when he heard noise of the people. This clearly shows that he had not witnessed the occurrence. A suggestion was put to him that Bhonku Ram suddenly came on the road and struck with the vehicle which suggestion was not denied by him but he denied his knowledge in this behalf. This clearly shows that the possibility that Bhonku Ram deceased suddenly came on the road and was struck with the vehicle, cannot be ruled out. PW-4 Onkar Chand, is the second eye witness who is running a shop on the spot and he stated that the respondent was reversing the truck and an old man, namely, Bhonku Ram, who was having weak eye sight, was struck by the truck. PW-5 Birodhi Ram is the son of the deceased, who was allegedly present along with his father when his father was run over by the truck which was being reversed by the respondent. He has also admitted that his father was having weak eye sight. A suggestion was put to all the witnesses that the Conductor was getting the truck reversed but this was denied by PW-4 Onkar Chand and PW-5 Birodhi Ram though PW-1 Bakshi Chand had denied his knowledge in case the Conductor was assisting the driver at the time of reversing of the vehicle. From the above discussion, it is clear that a specific plea has been that the deceased was a person of 70-80 years of age and was having a weak eye sight, which fact has also been admitted by PW-5 Birodhi Ram son of the deceased. A plea was taken that the deceased suddenly came on the road and struck against the truck. It was denied by two of the witnesses but PW-4 Onkar Chand had denied his knowledge in case the deceased had come on the road suddenly or not. Therefore, the possibility that the deceased came on the road suddenly and struck with the truck cannot be ruled out. There were many shops on the spot which was a Bazar and many persons had witnessed the occurrence but only three witnesses have been examined, including the son of the deceased, and the statements of the two independent witnesses, PW-1 Bakshi Chand and PW-4 Onkar Chand cannot be said to be such which can lead to the conclusion that due the rash or negligent driving on the part of the respondent, the deceased was run over by the truck. It is true that the vehicles when are being reversed on the road the driver is required to take all precautions and the speed at that time may not be a material factor, but there is no evidence that the driver was reversing the truck at a fast speed so that the Court could have taken a different view. The mere fact that the accident took place and a person has died, is not sufficient to prove that the respondent was driving the vehicle rashly or negligently for which there has to be some specific evidence which is lacking in the present case. The final decision taken by the learned trial Court in acquitting the respondent cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court and as such, there is no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the respondent are discharged. 9th July, 2008 (V.K.Ahuja),J. (sds)