IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.497 of 2001 Date of decision: 8.7.2008 ______________________________________________________ State of H.P. Appellant. Versus Parvesh Kumar 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.Sanjay Datt Vasudeva, Advocate. V.K.Ahuja, J (oral). This appeal has been filed by the State of H.P. against the judgment of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class (1), Dharamshala, dated 21.5.2001 vide which the respondent was acquitted of the charge framed against him under Sections 279,337 IPC. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a report was lodged by PW-1 Kuldeep Singh, a Clerk in Military, that on 24.6.2000 at around 6.30 PM, he was going along with some officials to Yol in a military vehicle being driven by Naresh Paul. Their vehicle was going upwards and a bus of HRTC number mentioned therein, came there at a high speed being driven by the respondent, from the opposite side and on seeing the bus the driver of the military vehicle parked his truck on one side of the road but the respondent struck his bus against the military vehicle due to which the driver of the Truck, namely Naresh Paul sustained injuries. It was alleged that the accident took place due to rash or Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. negligent driving of the accused/respondent. His statement under Section 154 Cr. P.C. was recorded leading to the registration of the case and on completion of the investigation, challan was filed as against the respondent who was tried by the learned trial Court leading to his acquittal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It is clear from a perusal of the statement of PW-1 Kuldeep Singh, Clerk of military department who had lodged a complaint, he has stated that the accident took place due to rash or negligent driving of the respondent. Apart from him, the occupants of the truck were Rajinder Kumar. Amar Singh, PW-2 Bachoo Singh and PW-6 Asif Ahmed. It is in the statement of PW-1 Kuldeep Singh that he was the only person sitting in the front seat of the truck meaning thereby that he could see the accident taking place and the remaining occupants were sitting on the rear portion of the truck and they could not have witnessed the occurrence, and, therefore they could not have stated the manner in which the accident had taken place. Therefore, the statements of PW-2 Bachoo Singh and PW-6 Asif Ahmed which are only to the effect that the accident took place due to rash or negligent driving of the respondent, cannot be said to be material. Coming to the statement of PW-1 Kuldeep Singh complainant, he has nowhere stated about the speed of the Bus at the relevant time. The other witnesses examined by the prosecution have also not started anything about the speed of the truck at the relevant time. It has come in the statements of the prosecution witnesses that the accident took place on a blind curve. It has also come up in evidence that on the side of the bus the road was dug by the telephone department and it suggests that the respondent might have tried to avoid the accident. The learned trial Court had also observed that it has come up in evidence that there are houses near the place of the accident and 4-5 passengers were also present at the spot but none of them was associated by the Investigating Officer and none of them has been examined as prosecution witnesses. The statements of the witnesses referred to above, can be said to be interested witnesses belonging to the military department. To my mind PW-9 Naresh Paul, driver of the military vehicle, appears to be a truthful witness who has clearly stated that he cannot say as to by whose negligence the accident took place. Even after being declared hostile by the ld. A.P.P. he denied the suggestion that the accident took place due to rash or negligent driving of the respondent. The sum total of the above discussion is that the learned trial Court had rightly come to the conclusion that the guilt of the respondent could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt and thus the findings recorded by the learned trial Court acquitting the respondent cannot be termed as perverse calling for an interference by this Court. In view of above discussion, I hold that there is no merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the respondent shall strand discharged. 8th July, 2008 (V.K.Ahuja),J. (sds)