IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No.587 of 2002 Date of decision : June 3, 2009 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Saidul Rehman and another. …Respondents. 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 Respondents : Ms. Sunita Sharma, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment, dated 27.5.2002, whereby respondents Saidul Rehman and Rupender Singh, driver and conductor, respectively, of bus No.HP-17-6086, who were charged with and tried for offences, under Sections 279, 337, 304-A IPC and Section 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, have been acquitted. 2. Respondents were sent up for trial on the allegations that on 12.7.2001 they were the driver and the conductor of bus No. HP-17- 6086, which left Paonta Sahbi for Nahan and that when the bus reached a place called Dosarka, around 5.15 PM, driver drove it so rashly or negligently that the front window of the bus opened with a jerk, as a result of which Ram Kamal, who was sitting close to the said window, fell off the bus and sustained head injuries, which resulted in his instantaneous death. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 3. Prosecution examined three witnesses to bring the charge home to the respondents. Two of them, who were allegedly travelling by the bus, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution story. The third one, namely PW-2 Basudev Sahni, though claimed to be an eye witness and travelling by the bus, yet to the police, in his statement, under Section 161 Cr. P.C., with which he was duly confronted, he stated that the deceased was his brother and that he reached the spot on being telephonically informed about the accident by someone. 4. I have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General as also the learned counsel for the respondents and gone through the evidence. 5. Report was lodged with the police by PW-1 Hamid Ali, who claimed that he was travelling by the bus. Though to the police he had reported that the window opened up, all of a sudden, because of excessive speed of the bus and the driver not applying the brakes at a curve, yet in the Court he stated that the deceased was drunk and that he lost balance and fell from the window. He denied that the bus was being driven fast or it was not slowed down, even when a curve was being negotiated. 6. PW-3 Mohinder Singh, another passenger of the bus, was declared hostile by the prosecution, as he initially did not support the prosecution story. However, in the cross-examination, by the prosecution, he stated that the bus was being driven very fast and it had not been slowed down at the curve and because of that the accident took place. But then in the cross-examination, by the defence counsel, he stated that deceased himself was to blame for his fall from the bus, because he had been chewing Pan and spitting every now and …3… then, through the window and while doing so, he lost balance and fell down. 7. In view of the above stated position, I see no reason for interfering with the judgment of the trial Court. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. June 3, 2009 (ss) ( Surjit Singh ), J