IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No.172 of 2002. Date of decision:16.12.2008 State of H.P. .. ..Appellant Versus Manish Kumar .. ..Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the Appellant: Mr.R.M.Bisht, Dy.A.G. For the respondent: Mr.Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Advocate _____________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) This Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.II, Amb, District Una, H.P. dated 12.11.2001 whereby the respondent has been acquitted of having committed an offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304-A IPC. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 23.6.2000 Sh.Rattan Chand had gone to the Bazaar in connection with his personal work. At about 11 a.m. when he was returning home a scooter bearing No.HP-19- 5658 came from behind. It is alleged that this scooter was being driven by accused Manish Kumar in a rash and negligent manner in a very high speed and that the scooter hit the injured who suffered injuries. It would be pertinent to mention that report was first lodged with the police by Smt.Sarjeewan Kumari, daughter-in-law of the injured Rattan Chand on 1.7.2000 …2… i.e. one week after the incident had taken place. According to her, she had been informed by her father- in-law that the person sitting on the pillion of the scooter had picked up him. He had however noted the number of the scooter and also disclosed the name of the driver of the vehicle. Her father-in-law came home and fell unconscious whereafter he was removed to Daulatpur Hospital on 24.6.2000. According to her he remained under treatment thereafter also. On this complaint, Fir Ext.PW-4/A was registered, investigation was got conducted and thereafter challan was filed. The accused appeared in the Court and pleaded not guilty. The learned trial Court has acquitted the accused. Hence, the present appeal. The prosecution in support of its case has produced two eye-witnesses the first of them is PW-2 Balbir Singh. According to him he and PW-3 Raj Kumar had witnessed the incident when they were in Mubarkpur Bazaar. He states that a scooter was being driven at a speed of 50 to 60 kms per hour and struck Rattan Chand from behind. As a result of the accident, Rattan Chand sustained injuries and fell down. He further states that he and Raj Kumar picked the injured. In cross examination by the accused he submits that his statement as well as the statement of Raj Kumar was recorded on the spot by the police but he was not aware when the statement was recorded. According to him there was only one injury on the person of Rattan Chand. …3… Raj Kumar has made a similar statement. He however states that after the accident he went to his own house. According to him, the police recorded his and PW-2 Balbir Singh’s statements in the Police Station after 6-7 days of the incident. He admits that the injured Rattan Chand belongs to his village and related to both him and PW-2 Balbir Singh. No other witness has witnessed the incident. No reliance can be placed on PWs 2&3. They are relative of the injured who later died. According to PW-2 they picked up the injured however PW-3 does not say so. It is not believable that these two persons who were the co-villagers of the deceased and also related to him would have left the injured at the spot and gone back to their home. Even as per the complainant the injured had informed her that he was taken to the hospital by the pillion rider of the scooter. He had not made any mention of Raj Kumar and Balbir Singh being present on the spot. Therefore, their presence on the spot is extremely doubtful. The FIR has been lodged after a delay of one week. There is no plausible explanation for the delay. True it is, according to the complainant, the injured was getting treatment but no proof of such treatment has been proved on record. According to the complainant the deceased died on account of the injuries sustained in the accident but according to the post mortem report Ext.PW-5/B proved by PW-5 Dr.R.C. Thakur the cause of the death of deceased …4… is Pneumonia and not any injuries sustained in the accident. The version of the prosecution is also not believable because according to the witnesses the injured was hit by the scooter from behind. The Doctor has however clearly stated that there were no injuries on the back of the deceased. Another disturbing aspect of the case is that according to PW-7 Head Constable Vijay Kumar he had come to know about the accident on 23.6.2000 itself when he was informed of the same by the doctor. Thereafter, even though he knew the address of Rattan Chand he did not try to record the statement of Rattan Chand till the complaint was lodged on 1.7.2000. In view of the various contradictions in the prosecution version, the fact that no reliance can be placed on the statements of the so called eye-witnesses and the unexplained delay in the lodging of the FIR as well as the fact that there is no cogent evidence to prove that the injuries were relatable to the accident, the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused. I find no error in the judgment of the trial Court. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. December 16, 2008. ( Deepak Gupta ), PV Judge