IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 358 of 2001 Date of decision: 23.04.2008 State of Himachal Pradesh ... Appellant Versus Sanjeev Kumar … Respondent Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. For the respondent: None. V.K. Ahuja , J. (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. against the judgment of the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kandaghat, dated 30.3.2001, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the accusation against him under Sections 279 and 337 I.P.C. Briefly stated the facts of the case as alleged by the complainant are that on 15.2.1999 complainant PW-1 Naresh Joshi alongwith one Gopal Krishan and her son Rohit Kumar were going in Fiat Car. The Car was being driven by Rohit Kumar. The Car met with an accident with a bus at a place known as Shardaghat at about 7.30AM. It was alleged that the bus was being driven rashly and negligently by the respondent resulting in the accident, on which a case was registered and 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 after investigation, the challan was filed against the respondent who was tried by the trial Court leading to his acquittal. Heard. It is clear from a perusal of the record of the case that the prosecution has examined three occupants of the Car including the driver of the Car who suffered injuries and no passenger from the bus or any other person has been examined to substantiate the case. The case rests upon three occupants of the Car only. The first witness PW-1 Smt. Naresh Joshi who was one of the occupants has stated that the bus was coming at a fast speed and it came on wrong side and the driver struck his bus with their Car and she suffered injuries apart from the other occupants. PW-2 Gopal Krishan, the other occupant of the Car has also stated similarly. He stated that on seeing the bus, the driver of their Car, namely, Rohit Kumar had applied the brakes but the bus struck with their vehicle in the centre of the road and they suffered injuries. The third occupant of the Car and driver of the Car PW-9 Rohit Kumar has stated that he was driving the Car and the bus came on the wrong side and struck with their Car which was damaged and they suffered injuries. All three PWs have not stated about the speed of the vehicle. The witnesses have nowhere stated as to how the accident took place, whether it took place in the centre of the road or how much space was left on their side. All the witnesses have admitted that the accident had taken place on a curve and PW-9 Rohit Kumar had admitted that if the vehicle is driven in fourth gear, the speed is generally 50-60 KM per hour. According to the report of the mechanic PW-4 Chinta Mani, the Car 3 was found on fourth gear, though it was going upward, while the bus was found in the third gear and it was going on the down side of the road. It clearly suggests that the Car was going upwards and the speed was around 50-60 KM per hour, to drive the vehicle in fourth gear, it clearly shows that the Car was being driven at a fast speed and he was not required to drive the car at 50-60KM per hour in the fourth gear while going upward on a curve. PW-12 Dharam Singh, H.C. who is the Investigating Officer has stated that he visited the spot after several hours and prepared site. plan. There is nothing in his statement which could show the exact place of accident, whether it was on the centre of the road and how much space was left on the side of the vehicles. It appears from the statement that position of the vehicle has been changed and, therefore, no conclusion can be drawn from his statement about the manner of the accident or the exact place of accident so as to conclude rash and negligent act on the part of the accused, which is lacking in the case. Therefore, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court. In view of the above discussion, it follows that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed accordingly. Bail bonds furnished by the respondent are discharged. ( V.K. Ahuja ) April 23, 2008 Judge (BSS) 4