IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. 695 of 2000 Date of decision : 8.5.2008 State of H.P. Appellant Versus Dev Raj Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) This appeal is directed against the judgement of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, dated 31st July, 2000, whereby whereby he has acquitted the accused of having committed an offence punishable under Sections 279/337/338/201 IPC read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The undisputed facts of the case are that an accident took place at about 5.00 A.M on 9th March, 1996 near Gandhi Chowk, Ghumarwin. From the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 evidence material on record, it is apparent that first the accused, who was driving the truck No. Wb-11-6765, hit the parapet, then the truck skidded to the other side of the road and struck against a jeep and thereafter went inside a shop. The nature of the accident is such that negligent driving could be presumed. The defence of the driver, however, is that the accident occurred due to a mechanical defect as the tie rod of the vehicle suddenly broke. PW-14, constable, Lekh Ram had mechanically examined the truck. According to him the tie rod of the truck was broken but as per his version there was no mechanical defect in the vehicle when the accident took place but the tie road broke on the spot after hitting an angle iron. There is no manner of doubt that this witness has found that the tie rod has broken. He has further assumed that the tie rod broke due to hitting the angle iron. This witness has not given any reason to support his opinion that the tie road broke due to hitting the angle iron. This witness has also admitted if a tie rod of the vehicle breaks the vehicle will go out of control. The prosecution in this case has failed to prove at what stage the tie rod had broken. If it had broken before the accident then obviously no fault can be found with the 3 respondent. Once this fact was admitted that the tie rod of the vehicle was broken the burden was on the prosecution to prove that the tie rod had broken after the accident. This burden in my opinion has not been sufficiently discharged by the prosecution. The learned trial Court rightly came to the conclusion and acquitted the accused. Therefore, I find no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. May 8, 2008 ( Deepak Gupta ), J. ™