IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.: 238 of 2001. Reserved on: 25.02.2008. Decided on: 28.2.2008. State of Himachal Pradesh. … … Appellant. Versus Amar Singh. … … Accused/Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr. Rajinder Dogra and Mr. Anil Kumar Jaswal, Deputy Advocate Generals. For the Accused/Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, Judge: The respondent was prosecuted in case No.131-1 of 1998 in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amb, District. Una (H.P.) under Sections 279, 337, 304-A, Indian Penal Code and was acquitted on 15.7.2000. Hence this appeal. The brief facts, which can be culled out from the judgment of the trial Court are that on 25.11.1998 at about 10 P.M. at Amb near Himalayan Dhaba on the public road, the accused was driving maruti van No.DL-6-CD-3471 in a rash and negligent manner and hit Ashok Kumar (since deceased) who was crossing the road. The intimation of the accident was conveyed to the Police Station, Amb telephonically and Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Head Constable Vijay Kumar proceeded to the spot, who recorded the statement of Boby Kumar (PW-6) under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and sent rukka for the registration of F.I.R. After the investigation, the challan was filed in the Court. The prosecution had examined 12 witnesses in all to prove the case against the accused. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The trial Court acquitted the accused on 15.7.2000. Thus, this appeal by the State against the judgment of acquittal dated 15.7.2000. The learned Deputy Advocate General had strenuously argued that the prosecution has proved the case against the respondent. Shri Rajesh Mandhotra had supported the judgment dated 15.7.2000. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The F.I.R. has been registered on the basis of statement of PW-6, Boby Kumar (Ex.PW-6/A). It is evident from the bare perusal of Ex.PW-6/A that Boby Kumar had only given the number of van, but has not disclosed the name of the driver. It is not mentioned in the report that he had seen the accused driving the van. PW-7, Saravdayal is owner of the dhaba. He has been declared hostile. He has stated that two persons got down from the bus and one person started taking his meals and the other person tried to cross the road. PW-8, Santokh Singh has not supported the case of the prosecution. Similarly, PW-10, Kashmir Singh was also declared hostile. Shri Kashmir Singh had stated that Boby Kumar was called out while he was having his meals. He has further stated that the spot where the accident has taken place was not visible from the dhaba. PW-11, Ramesh Sharma is the owner of the maruti van. He was also declared hostile. He had stated that he had engaged two drivers on his van and was not aware which of the two was driving the van at the relevant time. PW-12 Vijay Singh had admitted in his statement that the spot where the accident has taken place is a busy place. He had also admitted that the van was recovered in the vicinity of police station. Since PW-7, Saravdayal, owner of the dhaba, PW-8, Santokh Singh, PW-10, Kashmir Singh and PW-11 owner of the van have been declared hostile, the Court has to consider the statement of PW-6, Boby Kumar cautiously. Boby Kumar, PW-6 had not disclosed in the report that he had seen the driver in the light of bulb as stated in his cross examination. It is highly improbable that Boby Kumar could see the driver if the van was being driven at speed at 10 P.M. PW-7, Saravdayal and PW-10, Kashmir Singh have stated that Boby Kumar was having meals at the time when the accident took place. If Boby Kumar had seen the accused driving the vehicle, he should have mentioned the same in his statement Ex.PW-6/A. PW-6 is closely related to Ashok Kumar (deceased). Therefore, his statement in the absence of corroboration cannot be believed. The other circumstance which cannot be over-looked by the Court is that no independent witnesses were associated by the police though the place where the accident has taken place is a busy place. The prosecution version that the van in question had been recovered near the police station also casts doubt on the prosecution case. If the accident had been caused by the same van, it was highly improbable that the driver would park the vehicle near the police station. In the mechanical report Ex.PW-2/A what has been stated is that the left side mirror of the vehicle had broken, but no dents etc. were pointed out in the report. If the van in question was being driven rashly or negligently at high speed, some damage was bound to be caused to the body of the van. The trial Court on the basis of correct appreciation has rightly acquitted the respondent by giving him benefit of doubt. Accordingly, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the respondent-accused is discharged. February 28, 2008. (Rajiv Sharma), (sck) Judge.