IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No.350 of 2008 Decided on: April 10, 2008. State of Himachal Pradesh …Petitioner. VERSUS Rajiq Hussain ….Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No For the Petitioner : Mr A.K.Bansal, Addl.A.G. For the respondent : Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) The State has filed this petition seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment dated 31.10.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Paonta Sahib in Criminal case No.29/2 of 2003/2002 acquitting the respondent for commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 IPC. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that a telephonic information was received at Police Station, Paonta Sahib that on Bangran road an accident has taken place. On this, S.I. Gurdip Singh PW-10 along with HHC Sita Ram and Constable Joginder Singh reached the spot, statement Ext.PW-10/A of PW-1 Jagat Singh complainant was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C., wherein he stated that on 31.8.2002 at about 10 a.m. respondent while driving truck bearing registration No.HP-17-9964 on Bangran – Paonta Sabib Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes …2… road in a rash and negligent manner hit scooter which was being driven by PW-4 Satpal Singh who fell down and sustained injuries. On the basis of this statement, F.I.R. Ext.PW-7/A was registered. The injured was medically examined vide MLC Ext.PW-8/B. The truck No.HP-17-9964 was taken in possession. The vehicles involved in the accident were mechanically examined as per reports Ext.PW- 6/A and Ext.PW-6/B. The site plan Ext.PW-10/C was also prepared. On completion of investigation, challan was presented and notice of accusation was put to the respondent for commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 IPC. The prosecution has examined 10 witnesses, the statement of respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The learned trial Magistrate acquitted the respondent on 31.10.2007, as noticed above. 3. The statement of PW-1 Jagat Singh complainant has been discussed by learned trial Magistrate in Para-8 of the judgment. PW-1 has stated that on the date of incident, he had taken lift from a person on a cycle although on other days he usually takes bus to reach his work. He could not name the cyclist from whom he took the lift. He has also stated that on that day it was raining very heavily. The learned trial Magistrate has noticed this fact. This witness did not extend help to Satpal injured for taking him to hospital. No other independent witness has been examined by the prosecution. In the totality of facts and circumstances narrated by PW-1, the learned trial Magistrate did not believe him. 4. PW-4 Satpal Singh victim has stated that he was pulled under the truck but the injuries found on his person in MLC are not in …3… consonance with his statement inasmuch as he would have suffered more injuries had he come under the truck. The deposition of the injured is also not in consonance with site plan Ext.PW-10/C. The learned trial Magistrate has recorded a finding that at the time of accident pits on the road were filled with water and possibility could not be ruled out that because of pits filled with water due to rain the scooterist could not balance the scooter and fell down. There were 20 / 25 people on the spot but no one was examined as witness, therefore, the learned trial Magistrate has drawn adverse inference against the prosecution. The learned trial Magistrate has appreciated the evidence properly, as emerges from the impugned judgment. No case has been made out for grant of leave to file appeal against the impugned judgment. Hence, leave to appeal refused and the petition is rejected. April 10, 2008 ( Kuldip Singh ), J. (soni)