IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No. 391 of 2001 Date of decision : April 28, 2008 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Karnail Singh …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge( Oral ) State is aggrieved by the judgment of trial Magistrate, whereby respondent, who was charged with and tried for offences, punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, has been acquitted. 2. Case of the prosecution may be summed up thus. On 3.10.1999, a bus of Air Force was coming from Ambala to Shimla and a bus of Punjab Roadways was going from Shimla towards Chandigarh. The two buses reached the site of the accident near Kandghat, around 10 a.m. Respondent was driving the Punjab Roadways bus. Mahavir Singh (PW-1) was driving Air Force bus. An accident took place when the buses were to cross each other. PW-1 Mahavir Singh lodged report with the police that the Punjab Roadways bus, which came from the opposite direction, was on the Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… wrong side and on seeing that bus, he took his own bus to the extreme left, but still the Punjab Roadways bus collided with his bus, as a result of which two occupants of his bus sustained injuries. 3. Case was registered. Spot was photographed. Photographs are Ex. P-1, P-2 and P-3. Site plan was also prepared. Statements of two injured occupants of the bus were recorded. 4. Trial Court has acquitted the respondent holding that the evidence on record does not show that any collision had taken place. Trial Court has relied upon the statement of PW-4, one of the injured, who stated in the cross-examination that the bus of Air Force hit into the mountain on its left side. 5. I have heard the learned Additional Advocate General and gone through the record. 6. It appears that probably no collision of the two buses had taken place, because no serious damage atleast to the bus of Punjab Roadways on that side, which was towards the Air Force bus, was noticed by PW-3 Chinta Mani, who conducted the mechanical test of the bus. The witness though noticed slight damage to the Punjab Roadways bus towards driver side but he did not say that the damage was recent or could have been the result of alleged collision. The photographs, particularly photograph Ex. P-2, suggest that there was sufficient gap between the two buses when they were brought to a halt after the accident. Even though, it appears that the Punjab Roadways bus, being driven by the respondent, had a lot of space to its left side and the space available to the Air Force bus was just enough to steer the bus parallel to the Punjab Roadways bus, yet it cannot be said that the respondent was …3… driving the bus so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life. It appears that PW-1 Mahavir Singh, who was steering the Air Force bus, got perplexed, on seeing the Punjab Roadways bus coming from the opposite direction, to some extent on the wrong side and in that moment of perplexion he steered the bus to his extreme left and it struck against the mountain. Photographs Ex. P-1 and P-3 clearly show that the Air Force bus struck against the mountain, despite the fact that there was enough space on its other side to cross safely. 7. In view of the abovestated position, I do not think this is a fit case for interference in the judgment of acquittal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. April 28, 2008(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J