IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.316 of 2002 Date of judgment: July 16, 2009 State of H.P. ..Appellant. Versus Sant Ram …Respondent. 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 Respondent : Mr. Sunil Awasthy, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J. (Oral) State has appealed against the judgment dated 12.7.2001 of learned trial Magistrate, whereby respondent Sant Ram, who was tried for offences, under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC, has been acquitted. Case of the prosecution, as per evidence on record, is as follows. On 18.5.1996, around 6.50 pm, respondent reached Saproon from Kalka side, driving Jeep No. CHO-01-6166. It went towards Solan town, i.e., towards Deputy Commissioner’s Office. Near the bifurcation of by-pass, it went to the wrong side at a fast Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - speed and hit PW4 Vijay Singh, as a result of which, he suffered simple as well as grievous injuries. He was rushed to the hospital. Incident was seen by PW1 Harnam Singh, a Home Guard, who was on duty at the aforesaid point, where there is a Police Traffic Check Booth, also. He gave a ring to the Police Station. Soon, PW11 SI Ranjit Singh, In-charge, Police Post, Saproon, reached the spot. He recorded statement of PW1 Harnam Singh, under Section 154 Cr.P.C., and sent the same to the Police Station, for formal registration of the case. Jeep was parked on the spot. It was taken into possession along with its documents. Mechanical test of the jeep, in question, was conducted and no defect was noticed. Respondent was challaned. Trial Court put him on trial for the aforesaid offences and at the end of trial, acquitted him. I have perused the record and heard the learned Assistant Advocate General, as also learned counsel for the respondent. Respondent is accused of rash driving. According to the prosecution, the vehicle was being driven at excessive speed and also on the wrong side and thus, it was a case of rash driving. However, PW11 Ranjit Singh, Investigating Officer of the case, who - 3 - prepared the site plan Ex.PW11/A, stated in his cross- examination that the vehicle stopped at a distance of just 2 feet after hitting PW4 Vijay Singh. He also stated that if a vehicle moving on the National Highway, at the relevant point, has to go towards Deputy Commissioner’s Office or say, towards Solan town, it has to pass through point “A”, where the accident had taken place. Even though, point “A” happens to be on the wrong side of the driver. According to PW11, on the left hand side, taxis are parked and, therefore, the vehicles which divert from the National Highway towards Solan town, pass near point “A”, where the accident had taken place. This statement of the investigating officer, demolishes the entire case of the prosecution. The fact that the vehicle stopped at a distance of just 2 feet after hitting PW4 Vijay Singh, suggests that the vehicle was being driven at a slow speed and the fact that the vehicle had to pass by point “A” for going to the town, negates the allegation that the vehicle was being driven on the wrong side. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. July 16, 2009. (Surjit Singh), J s