IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. 358 of 2003 Date of Decision: 3rd August, 2010 __________________________________________________________ State of H.P. ….Appellant. Versus Piyush Jaswal & another ….Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the Appellant: Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondent: None. __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J (oral). The State is aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned trial Court acquitting the respondents for offences under Sections 115, 177, 183, 184, 185, 194 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. 2. Briefly stated the allegations against the respondent are that on 25.12.2000 at about 8.40 p.m. when PW1 complainant HC Yog Raj alongwith C. Sushil Kumar were present on traffic duty at Shilli chowk, Shimla, the accused persons, who were purportedly in drunken condition, came in a white colour maruti car bearing registration No. CH-01-M-4025, 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 being driven by one of the respondents in a rash and negligent manner. The car came from the Mall Road side (lift side). The complainant PW1 HC Yog Raj and C. Sushil Kumar (given up as being repetitive) signaled the respondent to stop the car but they did not pay any heed and kept driving it dangerously towards Chhota Shimla side. Thereupon, PW1 informed the Police Assistance Room that one maruti car was being driven at a very high speed which could cause accident any time. Thereafter ruka Ext.PW8/A was prepared and was sent to Police Station Sadar, Shimla, through C. Sushil Kumar for registration of the case, on the basis of which FIR Ext.PW8/B was registered against the accused persons/respondents. Site plan Ext.PW12/A was prepared and vide memo Ext.PW12/B maruti car was recovered and the broken hooks of the chain which were used to hold the chain were also taken into possession vide memo Ext.PW1/C. The photocopy of the notification declaring the road to be a sealed road was also proved on record. The medical examination of both the accused was conducted at Deen Dayal Upadhaya Hospital, Shimla and medico legal certificates, Ext.PW7/A and Ext.PW7/B, were certified by the doctor. The report of Forensic Science Laboratory Ext.PW12/F was also pressed into evidence. 3. The learned trial Court, in order to prove the guilt of the respondents, examined 12 witnesses in all. On consideration of evidence of two witnesses namely PW1 HC Yog Raj and PW5 C. Rajinder Kumar the Court held that no case was established against these respondents. Though alcohol was found in the blood content of both the respondents, yet from the other evidence the Court concluded that accident had not been proved on record. 4. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the case having been established beyond all reasonable doubt, the fact that 3 both the respondents were in a drunken condition was itself sufficient coupled with the statements of eye witnesses PW1 HC Yog Raj and PW5 C. Rajinder Kumar to convict the respondents. 5. I have heard learned Additional Advocate General and gone through the record. Adverting to the statement of PW1 HC Yog Raj, he says that at 8.45 p.m. at night the offending vehicle was speeding towards Chhota Shimla from the Scandal Point side meaning that the vehicle was being driven from the Mall Road which is a sealed area towards Chhota Shimla. He signaled the driver of vehicle to stop, but he did not stop and broke the iron chain which was fixed on the spot. His statement does not inspire confidence as his cross examination is revealing. He states that “mein 25.12.200 ko din ke char baje se raat ke 12 baje tak tenat tha. Yeh theek hai ki vaadgarast sathan par do raste hain. Ek High Court ko jata hai, dusra Mall Road ko jata hai. Samai Kareeb 8.45 baje sham ka tha. Mall Road se koi bhi gaadi na gai aur High Court vale road se kitni gaadiyan gai thi, mein na bata sakta hoon.” This is sufficient to establish the fact that no car came from the Scandal Point/Mall Road side. If that be so, I fail to comprehend as to what the respondents were being tried for. The recoveries were also disbelieved by the learned Court as these have not been proved on record. C. Sushil Kumar the other witness has not been examined. 6 The statement of PW5 C. Rajinder Kumar may be considered. He states that he was posted on duty at C.T.O.(Central Telegraph Office) when he was informed by C. Mohinder Singh that one white colour maruti car, bearing registration No. CH-01-M-4025, was speeding towards the C.T.O. chowk. He whistled and signaled the car to stop but it sped towards Scandal point which is a hub of pedestrian activities in Shimla. He immediately reported the matter to Reporting 4 room. In his cross examination, he admits that he could not identify anybody in the darkness. I need not say anything as both witnesses have spoken against the case of prosecution. 6. Then remains the evidence of PW6 Manu Bhatia, who states that he was walking on the Mall Road when he saw maruti car being driven in a rash manner, but he could not say who was driving the car. Adverting to the evidence of PW7 Dr. Umesh Bharti, he says that alcohol level of both the accused persons was high and this can happen by consuming any medicine high in alcoholic content. In cross examination, he again admits that if one consumes medicine of high alcoholic contents, the contents of alcohol in the blood of respondent cannot be said to be abnormally high. 7. The prosecution witnesses have thus failed to establish its case. There is no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. 8. Before parting with this appeal, I must place on record my deep anguish and displeasure in the manner in which the case has been conducted. Everybody is aware that main portion of Shimla town from A.G. office to Chhota Shimla is a sealed area where no vehicle can be driven. According to the prosecution somebody had driven a car in high speed from CTO office to Shilly chowk by covering the area of 2.5 K.m. without miraculously injuring anybody. The prosecution, to say the least, has conducted the case in a very irresponsible manner and slip shod manner. 9. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Secretary (Home) for necessary action. Bail bonds furnished by the respondents are discharged. August 3rd, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud) (ms) Judge