IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.: 391 of 2004 Decided on : 29.10.2010 ______________________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh …Appellant. Versus Surjeet Kumar …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 No. For the appellant : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General. For the respondent : Mrs. Seema Sood, Advocate. _______________________________________________________________ V.K. Sharma, Judge (oral). The State is in appeal against the judgment dated 1.6.2004, of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, whereby, the appeal filed by the respondent (accused) against his conviction and the consequent sentence imposed upon him by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kangra, for the offences under Sections 279 and 337 IPC, was allowed. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 9.11.1997, at about 1.00 PM the complainant, Deveshwar Parshad (PW-2) was going from his shop after taking meals. In the meanwhile a three-wheeler bearing registration No. HP-04-0362 appeared 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No.` 2 on the road from old bus stand side. It was being driven by the accused in a very high speed, who could not control the same and hit it against the complainant. Resultantly, the complainant suffered injury. The matter was reported to the police which carried out investigation. 3. On completion of investigation the accused was sent up to face trial. On being charged, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution evidence followed. It examined as many as 8 witnesses. On close of the prosecution evidence the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, wherein, his defence was that of total denial. However, he did not lead any evidence in defence. 4. On conclusion of the trial the accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 279 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to suffer further simple imprisonment for one month. For the offence under Section 337 IPC simple imprisonment for three months was also imposed upon the accused. However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 5. Being aggrieved the accused carried the matter in appeal to the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala successfully. It is how the State is in appeal before this Court. 3 6. I have heard the learned Dy. Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State and the learned counsel for the accused and perused the record. 7. It is manifest from the close scrutiny of the two eye witnesses examined by the prosecution, namely, the complainant, PW-2 Deveshwar Parshad and his brother PW-3 Shri Hira Mani that though they have stated quite categorically that the complainant was hit by the three wheeler, yet their depositions are not sufficient in content to establish beyond reasonable doubt that it was the accused and the accused alone who was driving the three wheeler and was responsible for the accident. It is because the complainant has neither stated in chief examination nor during cross examination that the vehicle was being driven by the accused. Instead he has deposed that name of the driver who was driving the three wheeler was Surjeet (accused), which was disclosed to him by the police. Both the complainant PW-2 Deveshwar Parshad and his brother PW-3 Hira Mani have admitted that registration number of the three wheeler was not disclosed to the police by them. 8. In view of the above and on an overall view of the matter, it cannot be safely concluded that the prosecution has been able to bring home guilt against the accused for the offences for which he was charged, beyond reasonable doubt. It being so, I do not see any reason 4 to interfere with the impugned judgment dated 1.6.2004 of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (V.K.Sharma) Judge. October 29, 2010. Lsp*