IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.A. No.97/2001 Reserved on.28.12.2007 Decided on.1.1.2008 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Brij Lal. …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. No. For the appellant : Mr. V.K. Verma, Additional Advocate General. For the respondent Mr. Sunil Goel, Advocate vice Mr. Ashwani Pathak, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, J. The respondent was prosecuted in criminal case No. 46/2 1996 for offences punishable under sections 279, 304-A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan, H.P. and was acquitted on 24.6.2000. The State has filed this appeal against the acquittal of the respondent. The facts in nutshell are that on 31.8.1995 at about 2.30 P.M. the respondent-accused was driving truck No. HP-14-1116 on Shimla-Kalka Highway towards Solan in a rash and negligent manner and while driving so, he struck a pedestrian named Daya wife of Sabji Ram. She succumbed to her injuries in District Hospital. The matter was reported to the police by the son of the deceased Smt. Daya on 26.10.1995. On the completion of the investigation, the challan was filed in the Court. The respondent was charged under section 279, 304-A and 201 of the Indian 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 Penal Code. The accused was also examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan acquitted the respondent on 24.6.2000, hence, this appeal against his acquittal preferred by the State. The learned Additional Advocate General had strenuously argued that the prosecution has proved the case against the respondent-accused. Mr. Sunil Goel, Advocate appearing vice counsel for the respondent-accused had supported the judgment dated 24.6.2000. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. The accident is dated 31.8.1995 but the FIR was registered on 26.10.1995. The site plan was prepared by the Investigating Officer on 27.10.1995. The delay in lodging the FIR has not been explained satisfactorily by the prosecution. The FIR was registered on the basis of the information supplied by PW-3 Padi Ram son of the deceased on the basis of the information supplied to him by one Nilu a cobbler and one Lal Chand. Neither Nilu nor Lal Chand have been citied as witness by the prosecution. PW-1 Raj Kumar driver of three wheeler No. HP-050-0079 who had taken the injured lady to the hospital for treatment has not stated anything about the accident and the manner in which the accident has taken place. PW-8 Sambhu Ram was declared hostile. The investigation was carried out by PW-9 Prem Singh. He has admitted in his cross- examination that the site plan was prepared by him on 27.10.1995 as per the directions of the witnesses. It has not been proved on record that the truck in question was driven by the accused at the time of alleged accident. There is no eye witness that deceased lady Smt. Daya was knocked down by truck No. HP-14-1116. The fact that there is no eye witness, who had seen the accident coupled with the fact that the FIR has 3 been registered after a gap of 2 months, creates doubt about the accident dated 31.8.1995 by the accused. The trial court after appreciating the evidence in right perspective has acquitted the accused. In view of the observations made hereinabove, this Court will not interfere in the well reasoned judgment of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 24.6.2000 acquitting the respondent. The result of the above discussion is that there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. The bail bonds are cancelled and surety is discharged. ( Rajiv Sharma), Judge January 1, 2008 *Awasthi*