Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.650 of 2001. Dated of Decision: November 11, 2008. State of H.P. ……… Appellant. Versus Ram Singh. ………. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Appellant : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. For the Respondent : Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate, Surinder Singh, J (oral): The State has challenged the acquittal of the respondent, passed by the learned trial court in criminal case No.198/2 of 1998, decided on 20.2.2001 under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. In nut-shell, the case of the prosecution has been that PW5 Sunil Kumar was traveling in Bus No.HP-12-4033 along with his father PW1 Mahinder Singh. Mahinder Singh was sitting at seat No.2 besides the driver in front portion of the bus, whereas Sunil Kumar was sitting on the last seat of the Conductor. The said bus was going from Nalgarh to Shimla. On 13.8.1998 at about 3.00 P.M., when it reached ‘Behli Khud bridge’, the respondent-driver is alleged to have turned the bus towards his side negligently with the result, the rear 2 portion of the bus struck against the pillar across the bridge, with the result PW5 Sunil Kumar sustained fracture of his left elbow. The bus passengers raised hue and cry and it was stopped by the respondent at a distance of about 400 mtrs. Sunil Kumar was taken to Nalagarh hospital, from where he was referred to a bigger hospital. The matter was reported to the police on 20.8.1998 i.e. after about 7 days, in writing Ex.P1, a complaint was lodged by Mahinder Singh on the basis of which FIR Ex.PW9/A was formally registered in Police Station Nalagarh. The police visited the spot, prepared site plan and recorded the statements of the witnesses. PW5 Sunil Kumar was hospitalized till 17.8.98 in a private hospital. The medical treatment summary was taken from that hospital of PW1 Dr. Pradeep Aggarwal, the photocopies were exhibited as Ex.PW11/A to C. On 10.9.98, the police also got Sunil Kumar examined from Dr. M.R. Verma (PW6). According to him, there was no fracture. This fact was substantiated by PW8-A Dr. A.K.Tiwari. To this effect, he issued Certificate Ex.PW8/A. The HRTC bus aforesaid was taken into possession by the police and later released on supurdari. After completing the investigation, the challan was presented in the court for trial of the respondent- driver. The respondent denied the notice of accusation put to him under the aforesaid sections and claimed trial. 3 To prove its case, the prosecution examined its witnesses and the respondent was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The circumstances which were found attendant were also put to him. He denied the accident in question, however, no evidence in defence was led. At the end of trial, the respondent was acquitted, which has been assailed in this appeal by the State. Mr. J.S. Guleria, learned Law Officer led me through the evidence on record and contended that the learned trial court did not appreciate the evidence in right perspective, which resulted into wrong acquittal of the respondent. Contra, Shri Sanjeev Kuthiala, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment of the acquittal and further ventilated that the evidence of the prosecution is full of contradictions and replete and it does not inspire confidence. He also pointed out certain contradictions appearing in the prosecution evidence which renders the case of the prosecution highly doubtful. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and carefully examined the evidence on record of the case. The very case of the prosecution is shrouded by suspicion for that there are various reasons. Firstly, if the story as alleged is taken true at its face value, in that event, there should have been a substantial 4 damage on the rear portion of the bus, which came in contact with the pillar/pole across the bridge, but the police during the investigation did not bother to get the bus examined from any mechanic nor took the photographs thereof to lend strength to its case. However, in this behalf statement of PW10 HC Jai Gopal can be taken note of. He has categorically stated that there was no damage either to the pillar or to the rear portion of the bus. Secondly, PW1 Mahinder Singh the father of Sunil Kumar was sitting on seat No.2 and looking forward, therefore, he did not know whether his son PW5 Sunil Kumar had taken out his arm out of the bus, which caused the injuries to his left arm. Thirdly, the statement of PW6 Dr. M.R. Verma coupled with the statement of PW8-A Dr. A.K. Tiwari who had medically examined PW5 Sunil Kumar and also x-rayed the injury on 10.9.98 on police request did not find any fracture of any kind on the left arm of Sunil Kumar, aforesaid which makes the statement of PW11 Dr. Pradeep Aggarwal, who is alleged to have treated Sunil Kumar in his private hospital at Mani Majra, highly suspect. He has also not produced any X- ray pertaining to PW5 Sunil Kumar, to corroborate his version. Fourthly, there is delay of 7 days in lodging the FIR, which has not been explained cogently and properly by the complainant. Lastly, in order to corroborate the version of PW1, Ram Rattan (PW2) has been examined as independent witness. 5 According to him, injuries in the said accident were caused to Mahinder Singh, which goes contrary to the case of the prosecution. Thus, as noticed above, the version of the prosecution as disclosed by PWs 1,2 and 5 aforesaid is highly contradictory and not worth inspiring confidence. The learned trial court rightly picked up the above circumstances and properly appreciated it in order to come to the conclusion that the respondent was not guilty of the alleged offence. Since the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial court is borne out from the record, it requires no interference by this Court, accordingly the appeal is dismissed. The driving licence of the respondent, which was ordered to be released on 9.7.2008 by this court on execution of supurdari bond to the respondent, is hereby modified to the extent that the Registry will keep the certified copy of the driving licence on record and the original licence be returned to the respondent against a proper receipt. The respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him at any time during the proceedings of the case. The matter is accordingly disposed of. Send down the records. November 11, 2008. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.