HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.A.No.: 427 of 2003. Decided on: 18.5.2010 State of H.P. ………Appellant. Versus Hukam Chand ……Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellant: Mr.J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr.Himat Negi, vice Mr.Ajay Sharma, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P., dated 14.5.2003, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the notice of accusation put to him under Sections 279, 337, 338 of the IPC read with Sections 184, 181 and 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on receipt of an information that one injured lady has been brought to Dehra Hospital for treatment, PW-5 ASI Rumal Singh went to the Hospital and recorded the statement of the injured, on which an FIR was registered. After ______________________________ Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - investigation, the challan was filed before the learned trial Court under the aforementioned Sections. On consideration, notice of accusation was put to the respondent for the said offences and the respondent was tried by the learned trial Court leading to his acquittal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 4. On appraisal of the record of the case, it is very much clear that the accident took place at a place known as Dehra-Dhaliara-Pragpur road. The injured, as per the assertions made by her, was brought to the TMC Chowk by the respondent himself on the pretext of taking her to the Hospital and thereafter she was alighted at TMC Chowk, from where she was brought to the Hospital by PW-2 Joginder Singh and a case was registered. On appraisal of the record of the case, it is also clear that the prosecution case solely rests upon the testimony of PW-1 Smt.Usha Devi, injured/complainant in the case. According to the site plan Ext.PW-5/B, in front of spot where the accident took place, there are three shops, namely, at point C there is a shop of one Reema, at point D there is a shop of one Mukesh Kumar and at point E, there is a tyre repair shop. Out of these shopkeepers, the prosecution has examined PW-3 Ravinder Kumar, who is running a tyre shop at the place of occurrence and PW-4 Mukesh Kumar, whose shop has been shown at point D. However, both the witnesses, when examined, - 3 - turned hostile and had stated that they had not seen the accident. The third shopkeeper, namely, Reema Devi was not examined by the prosecution. Thus, the learned trial Court was left with the solitary statement of the complainant not corroborated by other witnesses. A plea has been taken in the cross examination of the complainant that she was crossing the road and at that time, the accident took place, which has been denied by her. However, the other witnesses examined by the prosecution have not supported the version of the complainant and once other witnesses were present and had also seen the occurrence but they do not support the complainant, her solitary statement cannot be relied upon to hold the respondent guilty. 5. Therefore, it is clear that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, in the facts of the case, cannot be said to be perverse. It is another thing that some other view could have also been taken by the learned trial Court. Therefore, no case is made out for an interference in the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court. 6. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant which is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondent shall stand discharged. May 18, 2010 (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge.