IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. 729 of 2001. Decided on : 10.4.2009. _________________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh …Appellant. Versus Bal Ram ....Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No. For the Appellant : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondent : None. __________________________________________________________ Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) The State has filed the present appeal against the acquittal of respondent in Criminal Case No. 38/2 of 2000 dated 8.8.2001 recorded by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kandaghat, acquitting the respondent under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 18.5. 2000 at about 2.15 p.m. the respondent was driving car bearing registration No. HP-51- 0197 in rash and negligent manner as a result of which, he collided the car against scooter bearing registration No. HP-13-0672 and thereby caused simple and grievous injuries to PW-6 Maheshwar Dutt Sharma and PW-7 Bhagat Singh. On receiving the information at the police station, PW-9 Ranjeet Singh was asked to investigate the matter. PW-6 made a statement ______________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes Ex.PW-6/A under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and thereupon FIR Ex.PW-8/B was recorded at Police Station, Kandaghat. The police took into possession both the vehicles involved in the accident and got them mechanically examined. The injured were got medically examined. On completion of investigation, challan was presented against the respondent for offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC and notice of accusation was put to him accordingly. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution has examined nine witnesses and produced some documents. The statement of respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and ultimately the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, acquitted the respondent, hence this appeal. 5. I have heard Mr. Anshul Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and have gone through the record. None appeared on behalf of the respondent. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has not properly appreciated the material on record and has erred in acquitting the respondent. 6. PW-6 Maheshwar Dutt Sharma, complainant in his cross- examination has stated that the car driver was going on his proper side. There was a curve where the road goes to Vaknaghat, they had left their side and had come to the opposite side. PW-7 was driving the scooter, he did not stop even after seeing the car. The scooter struck on the left side of the car and on the left side of the scooter there was sufficient space. PW-7 Bhagat Singh was driving the scooter at the relevant time and has stated that when he reached Vaknaghat, he turned the scooter towards Subathu road. There is a curve at Vaknaghat. He did not see the car. There were many persons on the spot. PW-1 Chinta Mani proved the mechanical reports Ex.PW-1/A and Ex.PW-1/B of both the vehicles. In cross-examination he has stated that car was coming uphill and was in second gear which has the maximum speed of 25 – 30 Kms. The scooter hit the car on the left side. PW-2 Bobby did not support the prosecution and he was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the prosecution. In the cross-examination conducted on behalf of the respondent, he has stated that on the spot scooter took a turn towards other road and was going to Subathu. The scooter driver did not give any signal and he was driving fast and struck the car on the left side. The respondent gave signal to stop. PW-3 Dr. R.K.Sharma, has proved MLC Ex.PW-3/A of Maheshwar Dutt Sharma. PW-4 Dr. Yashpal has proved MLC Ex.PW-4/A of Bhagat Singh. PW-9 Ranjeet Singh is the Investigating Officer. 7. The statement of PW-2 Bobby reveals that accident took place due to the fault of scooter driver. The statements of PW-6 Maheshwar Dutt Sharma and PW-7 Bhagat Singh also indicate that respondent was not negligent. PW-1 Chinta Mani has stated that car was in second gear in which maximum speed is 25 – 30 Kms, the M.L.Cs Ex.PW-3/A and Ex.PW-4/A are of no help to the prosecution in absence of proof of negligence on the part of the car driver. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has properly appreciated the material on record and has rightly acquitted the respondent. The prosecution has failed to make out any case for interference. There is no perversity in the impugned judgment. 8. The result of the above discussion, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds are discharged. ( Kuldip Singh ), April 10, 2009. Judge. (GR)