1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 524 of 2001. Decided on: July 04, 2008 ____________________________________________________________ State of H.P. ……..Appellant. Versus Rajinder Kumar. ……..Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. For the respondent : Mr. Sanjay Dutt Vasudeva, Advocate. ____________________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH,J (oral): The respondent was tried and acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and also Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which has been assailed in this appeal by the State. In short, the prosecution story is that on 28.1.2000, the respondent was driving his Taxi Jeep No.HP-02-3925. There were 10-12 passengers including PW1 Purshottam Lal complainant, PW2 Jagdamba his wife and PW6 Kumari Reema traveling in the said Jeep, which was going from village Bandi to Dharamshala. At about 4.30 p.m., after covering some distance from village Bandi, it went off the road and caused the accident, in which the aforesaid passengers sustained injuries. The police was informed telephonically about the accident. The injured were removed to the hospital. Statement of PW1 Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Purshottam Lal was recorded under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of which FIR Ex.PW5/A was registered against the respondent. The police prepared the site plan Ex.PW7/A of the spot of the accident and also took the Jeep in question in possession. There was fracture of leg of Purshottam Lal thus it was a grievous injury. Reema Devi aforesaid was also medically examined. She had the simple injuries. Other occupants Sulakshna and Sapna were also injured and their medico legal certificates have been admitted by the respondent. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completing the challan, it was presented in the court for trial. Respondent was charge-sheeted for the offence aforesaid. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After the complete trial, he was acquitted on the ground that the evidence of the prosecution is contradictory with respect to causing the accident and the defence was probablised by the respondent that the steering of the vehicle went free and vehicle in question was not mechanically examined. Heard. I have reappraised the evidence on record. In the instant case, accident stands admitted by the respondent but his defence is that while negotiating the curve, sudden defect developed in the steering wheel of the Jeep and it went free. PW1 complainant Purshottam Lal has stated that the vehicle in question was being driven by he respondent in a high speed due to which it over-turtle on the curve. In his cross- 3 examination, he displayed his ignorance that it was because of the fact that the steering went free. His wife Jagdamba (PW2) also did not know whether the steering of the vehicle went free. PW6 Kumari Reema deposed that the Jeep was in normal and slow speed and she did not know as to how the accident had occurred. PW7 SI Krishan Lal though admitted that no mechanical examination of the Jeep was got done, but according to him, such type of defect can be developed at any time in any vehicle. Though speed is not the criteria but it is rash and negligent act of driving which makes the respondent liable. On the critical examination and reappraisal of the aforesaid evidence, I find that the respondent was able to probablise his defence that the accident occurred due to the sudden defect in steering wheel. The Investigating Officer could not give any cogent explanation as to why the mechanical examination of the vehicle in question was not done, therefore, the defence raised has to be accepted. I have gone through the findings arrived at by the learned trial court, on the basis of which the acquittal of the respondent has been recorded. I do not find any perversity therein, accordingly, the appeal filed by the State is dismissed. The respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him at any time during the proceedings of the case. Send down the records. (Surinder Singh), Judge. July 04, 2008. (Pds)