HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.A.No. 349 of 2001 Decided on: 1.4.2008. State of Himachal Pradesh ………Appellant. Versus Girdhar Gopal ……Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellant: Mr.J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. For the respondent: Mr.Ajay Sharma, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the judgment of the court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class-I, Dharamshala, dated 23.2.2001, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the accusation put to him under Sections 279 and 338 IPC. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 17.6.1999, at about 1.45 p.m., a report was lodged with the police by PW-4 Om Parkash serving in Home Guard Department at Dharamshala that he had noticed an accident having taken place in between Maruti Van and a Hero Honda Motor Cycle in which the motorcyclist had suffered injuries. On this report, a case was registered and investigation was carried out by the police leading to the filing of the challan as against the respondent, who was tried by the learned trial court leading to his acquittal. _______ 1.Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - Heard. The submissions made by the learned Law Officer for the appellant were that there is sufficient evidence consisting of the statements of the injured and two of the eye witnesses, who have supported the case of the prosecution and, therefore, the findings of the learned trial court to the contrary call for an interference from this court. The learned counsel for the respondent had supported the impugned judgment for the reasons given therein. I have considered the evidence led by the prosecution. It is clear that out of 16 witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW-2 Krishan Lal, PW-3 Ranjeet Singh, PW-5 Parveen Kumar, who were examined as eye witnesses, have all not supported the prosecution story. The prosecution case mainly rests upon the testimony of the injured and two other witnesses. Coming to the statement of PW-10 Sushil Kumar, he has stated that he was coming on his motorcycle and a car came from the opposite side and on observing that it was coming at a fast speed, he applied brakes but the car struck with his motorcycle and he became unconscious and suffered injuries. In regard to the occurrence as to how the accident had taken place, he has not specifically stated either about the speed of the vehicle or the particular place where the accident took place; as to whether it took place in the centre of the road or on the right side or on the left side of the road or at which particular place. He denied the suggestion that he was driving the motorcycle at a fast speed, rashly or negligently and could not control the vehicle. Coming to the Statement of PW-4 Om Parkash, who supports the prosecution story to some extent, has stated that the accident took place in - 3 - between Van and the Motorcycle and the motorcyclist suffered injuries. In regard to the speed of both the vehicles, he stated that both the vehicles were going at medium speed. He did not state about the speed of the Van or that of the motorcycle. He simply stated that the accident took place due to the mistake of the driver of the Van, but did not state that the van driver was going at a high speed or could not control the vehicle or that it struck with the motorcycle. The other eye witness is PW-13 Pankaj Kumar, who has stated that he was going on the road and the Motor Van overtook his scooter and struck with a motorcycle coming from the opposite side. He also stated that the motorcyclist was dragged for 5’-6’, which was not so stated by either the injured or any other eye witness. A perusal of the statement of the Medical Officer PW-12 Dr.Atul Mahajan also shows that there were no injuries of dragging on the person of the injured. In case the motorcycle alongwith the motorcyclist had been dragged for a distance of about 5’-6’, how it is possible that when the Investigating Officer PW- 15 went to the spot, the Motorcycle and the Van were lying in front of each other. Apart from the above, a perusal of the site plan Ext.PW-15/A prepared by the Investigating Officer PW-15 H.C. Shyam Prasad, shows that he has mentioned the points where the accident took place, but he has not specified the exact place of accident whether it was in the centre of the road or on left side of the road or on right side of the road, so as to conclude as to which of the driver, whether motorcyclist or the van driver, was at fault. Therefore, nothing could be made out of the site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer. - 4 - From the above discussion, it is clear that the facts of the case do not establish the question of the rash or negligent driving of the van driver, which does not stand substantiated from the observations made by the Investigating Officer or the statement of the eye witnesses. The conclusion drawn by the learned trial court on the basis of the evidence cannot be said to be perverse, calling for an interference by this Court. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh, which is dismissed accordingly. Bail bonds shall stand discharged. April 1, 2008 (TILAK) (V.K. Ahuja), Judge.