IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Criminal Appeal No. 403 of 2003. Date of decision: 18.8.2010. State of Himachal Pradesh .…Appellant. Vs Suresh Kumar ....Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the Appellant : Mr. P.K.Sharma, Addl. A.G. with Mrs. Shubh Mahajan, DAG. For the Respondent : None. __________________________________________________________ Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 17.3.2001 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palampur in Criminal Case No. 119-II/1994 acquitting the respondent for offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 24.6.1994 at about 6.45 P.M. at Dadh respondent was driving Maruti Van No. HP- 02-3496 on public road. The respondent due to rash or negligent driving hit PW-1 Sant Ram and thereby caused injuries to him. The accident was reported to police by PW-1 and police got medically examined Sant Ram. On completion of investigation challan was presented in the Court and the notice of accusation was put to _____________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes 2 respondent under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC. The prosecution has examined 10 witnesses and has also produced some documents in support of its case. The statement of respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he led no evidence in defence. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the respondent on 17.3.2001, hence this appeal by the State. 3. I have heard Mr. P.K.Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General and have also gone through the record. PW-1 Sant Ram complainant has stated that at the relevant time he was standing on the road at Dadh as he was to take bus to Yol-Camp. In the meantime, matuti van came from Chamunda Temple side and hit him and he sustained injuries. His statement Ex.PW-1/A under Section 154 Cr.P.C. was recorded and he was medically examined. PW-2 Roshan Lal has stated that he was waiting for the bus at Dadh. In the meantime, taxi HP 02-3496 came from Chamunda side and hit Sant Ram. In cross-examination, he has stated that van was ascending. He has denied that Sant Ram after seeing the van got perplexed and fell down. He has stated that the van driver took the injured to the hospital. 4. PW-3 Mehar Chand has also stated that van came from Chamunda side and it was going uphill. He has not denied the suggestion that Sant Ram got perplexed after seeing the van. He has stated that he had not seen the van actually hitting Sant Ram. There are 25/30 shops on the spot. He has stated that Sant Ram is his co- villager. He has also stated that they wanted that driver must pay some amount to Sant Ram. He could not say that Sant Ram sustained injuries due to fall as he got perplexed. He also could not say that the van was going with speed of 10/15 KM. 3 5. PW-1 Sant Ram has contradicted PW-2 and PW-3 by denying that van was not going uphill. He has admitted that van driver took him to hospital. He could not say that van was being driven at the speed of 10/15 KM. He has stated lateron girl told him that he was hit by van. PW-4 Dr. Mohinder Singh examined injured Sant Ram and issued MLC Ex.PW-4/B. In cross-examination, he has stated that injuries can be caused to a person who falls on the road by running. He has stated that X-ray report was not prepared by him. 6. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has recorded a finding that on the basis of material on record, it appears to be a case of error of judgment on the part of the injured himself. It could be possible that due to error of judgment the injured himself had dashed against the van of the respondent who was driving the vehicle. The site plan Ex.PW-8/A indicates that accident took place almost in the middle of the road which was about 50 feet wide. This indicates that at the time of the accident, the injured was in the middle of the road. It has come on record that the van was going uphill. The complainant could not deny the case of the defence that at the time of the accident, the van was being driven 10/15 KM per hour. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken a possible view from the evidence on record and has rightly acquitted the respondent. The appellant has miserably failed to establish that the view taken by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate does not emerge from the evidence on record. There is no merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds are discharged. August 18, 2010. ( Kuldip Singh ), (GR) Judge.