IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 153 of 2005. Decided on: October 18,2011 State of Himachal Pradesh. ……..Appellant. Versus Karam Chand …..Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? For the appellant : Mr.A.K.Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent : None. _______________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH, J. (oral): The State has challenged the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304- A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. Briefly, the prosecution case can be stated thus. The deceased Smt. Nikko Devi was accompanied by PW-2 Smt. Raj Kumari and after de- boarding the bus they were in the process of crossing the National Highway. In the meantime, a Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - commander jeep bearing registration No. HP-02-8265, which was allegedly being driven by the respondent rashly and negligently hit Smt. Nikko Devi, on account of which she fell on the spot and died. PW-1 Ram Swaroop who is stated to be an eye witness, reported the matter to the police. 3. Police arrived at the spot and prepared inquest papers and site plan Ex. PW-5/C. 4. The jeep in question was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW-3/A along with its documents. The police also took photographs of the dead body. 5. The autopsy of the dead body was performed in the Sub Divisional Hospital. Post mortem report Ex. PA/D was obtained. The mechanical examination of the jeep was also conducted and the report is Ex. PB. 6. The police recorded the statement of witnesses under Section 161 of Cr. P.C. Challan was finalized and presented in the Court for the trial of the respondent. At the end of trial, respondent was acquitted. 7. Mr. A.K Bansal, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State argued that the learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence of the - 3 - prosecution in the right perspective which caused miscarriage of justice. 8. Contra learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment. 9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contention of the parties and have carefully gone through the case records. 10. PW-1 who was allegedly an eye witness, stated that the accident in question was caused by the respondent on account of rash and negligent driving. Of course, it was a National Highway and the deceased along with PW-2 Smt. Raj kumari was in the process of crossing the National Highway. Particularly in the cross- examination he admitted that while crossing the road the deceased got perplexed and struck against the left side of jeep and fell down on the road. The jeep driver stopped the jeep on the spot and Smt. Nikko Devi was immediately taken to the hospital. PW-2 Raj Kumari stated that she along with deceased de-boarded the bus, since they were going to attend the Court and in the process of crossing the road hurriedly, the deceased was hit by the jeep. In cross-examination she also admitted that the deceased got perplexed while crossing the road and struck against the jeep. PW-5 HC Veer Bhagwan Dass, the - 4 - Investigating Officer stated that the jeep was on its left side of the road and in the same vehicle the deceased was taken to the hospital where she was declared dead. 11. On the critical examination of the evidence, I am of the considered opinion that rash and negligent driving of the accused is not proved. The jeep was being driven on National Highway and it was on left side of road, though PW-1 stated that jeep was being driven at high speed but speed is no criteria to attribute any rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent. The circumstances show that it was the deceased who got perplexed while crossing in order to reach the other end of the road in that process she struck against it, therefore, the requisite ingredients of the offences are not proved in accordance with law. Therefore, the acquittal of the respondent cannot be interfered with, as such, the appeal is dismissed being without any merit. 12. The respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him at any time during the proceedings of this case. 13. Send down the records. (Surinder Singh), Judge. October 18, 2011 (priti)