IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. 640 of 2001 Date of decision : September 29, 2008. State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Balwant Singh & another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondents : None. Per Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) State of H.P. has appealed against the judgment dated 12.6.2001 of trial Magistrate, whereby respondents Balwant Singh and Satish Kumar, driver and conductor, respectively, of Bus No. HP-19-1946 who were tried for offences, punishable under Sections 279/304-A IPC and Section 184 of Motor Vehicle Act, have been acquitted. 2. Relevant facts are as follows. On 19th January 1997, Bus No. HP-19-1946 was being driven by respondent Balwant Singh and the conductor on the bus was respondent Satish Kumar. An old lady named Banto Devi and PW2 Om Parkash were among the passengers of the bus. Around 6.15 P.M. the bus reached a place called Pir Saluhi. There, it stopped for a while, to enable some passengers, including Banto Devi deceased and PW2 Om Parkash, to alight from it. Four persons including Om Parkash PW2 alighted Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… from the rear window of the bus, while Banto Devi started alighting through the front window. When she was still alighting from the bus, driver put the bus into motion, as a result of which, Banto Devi fell down and got crushed under the rear wheel of the bus. Police was informed of the accident by a WHF message. SHO Kishan Chand PW4 rushed to the spot. There he came across PW2 Om Parkash, who made the statement that the accident took place, when the lady was alighting from the bus and the driver moved it. Case was registered on the basis of the aforesaid statement of Om Parkash, which is Ext.PW2/A. Inquest was conducted. Dead body was sent to the hospital for post mortem examination. Medical Officer, who conducted the post mortem examination (not examined as witness) opined that the cause of death could have been the injuries sustained due to running over of the lady by a bus. 3. Prosecution examined only PW2 Om Parkash as a witness of the occurrence of the accident. Trial Magistrate did not believe his testimony, because even though in the examination-in- chief, he stated that the accident took place when the lady was alighting from the bus through the front window and the driver put the bus into motion, in the cross-examination, he stated that he could not say if the lady had already alighted when the accident took place and that the cause of the accident was the entanglement of her umbrella in some part of the bus. Moreover, in the cross-examination, he stated that the lady had alighted from the bus through the rear window. This statement is contradictory to his statement in the examination-in-chief, wherein he stated that she was alighting through the front window, when the bus was put into motion. The witness also did not say anything about the …3… number of the bus. He also stated that he did not know who were the conductor and the driver of the bus. The statement, which he made to the police, under Section 154 CrP.C., i.e. Ext. PW2/A, shows that bus number had been interpolated in the statement. Keeping in view the aforesaid contradiction, as also the fact that the bus number is interpolated in the statement Ext.PW2/A, as also the denial by the respondents that their bus was involved in the accident, I do not think the trial Magistrate has committed any illegality in acquitting the respondents. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. ( Surjit Singh ), J September 29, 2008 (vs)