IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. 315 of 2003 Date of Decision: 19th July, 2010 __________________________________________________________ State of H.P. ….Petitioner. Versus Jagan Nath ….Respondent. ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No __________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General For the Respondent: Ms. Nishi Goel, Advocate vice Shri Sharwan Dogra, Advocate. __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J (oral). The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dehra acquitting the petitioner for offences under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that on 19.10.1998 at about 12.15 PM at Bane De Hattian, Jagan Nath, respondent, was driving the bus bearing No. HP-39-3912 on Dharamshala-Jawalamukhi road. According to the case put up by the 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 prosecution, the bus was being driven in a rash amd negligent manner as to endanger human life and it struck against the bicycle of Ramesh Kumar, complainant, as a result of which he fell down and sustained simple injuries. Babu Ram PW3, who was a Halwai at Bane De Hattian, sent his son Rinku, who informed Subhash Chand PW,1 brother of injured Ramesh Kumar, that he has sustained injuries. Subhash Chand then rushed to the spot and found Ramesh Kumar lying on the spot in an unconscious condition. He lifted him with the help of Narinder Kumar and took him in taxi to Kangra hospital where the police was informed. After investigation of the case, rash and negligent driving was registered against the respondent. 3. The learned trial Court, on the basis of evidence and more especially the spot map Ext.PW6/A and photographs Ext.P1 to Ext.P3, concludes that the accident has not occurred in the manner, as alleged. To arrive at this conclusion, the learned Court holds on visual examination of the photographs that the road at the spot is very wide. The bus is on extreme left side and bicycle is also on its extreme left side. In other words, the distance between the two is as such that it is not possible to cause the accident. If the bus hit the bicycle there would have been skid marks on the spot, which were absent. 4. The learned trial Court uses this evidence to assess the testimony of other witnesses namely PW3 Babu Ram, shopkeeper who states that he is an eye witness, but as he knows the injured, his testimony is held to be that of an interested witness. The Court also holds that at the time of accident the bus was going uphill side and in these circumstances, the question that bus being driven in high speed would not arise. One important fact is that at the time when the accident took place, 3 there were a number of passengers in the bus but nobody was examined by the prosecution. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court concludes that no offence of rash or negligent driving has been established against the respondent. After having gone through the evidence in detail and scrutinizing both the spot map and also photographs, I concur with the findings of learned trial Court. I cannot persuade myself to accept the sole testimony of PW3 Babu Ram which is contradicted with spot map Ext.PW6/A as also photographs Ext.P1 to Ext.P3. If the bus was being driven on its extreme left side and the bicycle was also on its extreme left side, it cannot be accepted that there has been a collusion. The road, according to the evidence, is wide enough. In these circumstances, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment of learned trial Court is affirmed. Bail bonds furnished by the respondent are discharged. July 19, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud) (ms) Judge