1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 417 of 2001. Date of decision: 17-11-2008. ____________________________________________________________ State of H.P. Appellant. -versus- Mohinder Singh. Respondent. _____________________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? Yes. For the appellant : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. For the respondent: : None. _________________________________________________________ Surinder Singh, J. (oral) The State has challenged the acquittal of the respondent passed by learned trial Court in case No. 12-II/2000 decided on 31-1-2001. In nut shell, the case of the prosecution can be stated thus: On 24-6-1999, the minor girl named Monu aged about seven years was going to School along with her grand-father PW3 Munshi Ram on motorable road. She was ahead of him. It is alleged that the respondent who was the Driver of Bus No. HP-20-1270 hit her while driving the said bus rashly and negligently resulting into the injuries on her person. Thereafter, she was hospitalized. Telephonic message was received about the said incident on the same day which was recorded in the Daily Diary Exhibit PW5/A. When the Police Officer reached the spot, by that time she was removed to P.H.C. Amb and on enquiry in the Primary Health Centre, A.S.I. Avtar Singh came to know that she was taken back in the same Bus and report Exhibit PW5/B was recorded by him. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 On 1.7.1999, PW3 Munshi Ram, the grand-father of the injured, got recorded the statement Exhibit PW3/A under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to A.S.I. Avtar Singh while he was camping at village. On the basis of this report, formal F.I.R. was registered. The Police took into possession the M.L.C. Exhibit PC which shows that there were six minor injuries on the person of the child. The police recorded the statement of alleged eye witnesses Nathu Ram and Rachhpal besides recording the statement of PW3, the grand-father of the child. The challan was presented against the respondent in the court under the aforesaid Sections. Notice of accusation was put to the respondent under Section 279 and 337of the Indian Penal Code to which he denied and claimed trial. To prove its case, the prosecution examined its witnesses. The circumstances which were found attendant upon the respondent were also put to him. According to the respondent, he was falsely implicated in the case and injuries on the person of Manu were because she came abruptly on the road leaving her grand-father PW3. No evidence in defense was led. At the end of the trial, the respondent was acquitted on the ground that the independent witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution, whereas, PW3 Shri Munshi Ram, grand-father of the injured also did not lodge the report of the incident abruptly and his statement did not substantiate the allegations of rash and negligent driving by the respondent. The ld. Trial Court did rely upon the statement of her grand-father for want of corroboration as it found some discrepancies therein. I have heard Shri J.S. Guleria, learned Law Officer but despite notice, neither the respondent has put in appearance nor his counsel was available to assist the Court. In the instant case, the delay in lodging the F.I.R. stands not explained by PW3 Munshi Ram. The injuries which were caused to the minor child were of- course admitted by the accused respondent but according to his explanation, the child immediately darted against the bus leaving the hands of her grand-father. The evidence shows that the respondent had stopped the bus at once and took her for 3 treatment to the hospital. The perusal of the M.L.C. also shows that she was advised X-ray for the injuries No. l to 3 and 5 but neither during the investigation of this case nor during the trial, the reports of X-ray were obtained nor produced. Even ski- grams are also not available on record. However, it finds mention in the complaint Exhibit PW3/A that minor aforesaid was taken to P.G.I Chandigarh but neither there is any reference in the M.L.C. nor in the statement of the investigating Officer or the complainant himself that the child aforesaid has sustained such an injury that she was required to be removed to PGI Chandigarh for treatment. Further the alleged eye witnesses namely PW1 Nathu Ram and PW2 Rachhpal have dis-owned their statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and clearly stated that they did not know as to how the accident had taken place. In his cross-examination, PW3 has also stated that when the accident had taken place, the child aforesaid was about six meter ahead of him. However, he denied in the cross- examination that leaving his hand immediately the child came in front of the Bus and that the driver of the Bus applied the breaks immediately. According to the respondent, it was fault of the child and her guardian accompanying her. On the re-appraisal of the evidence on record, it is not clearly made out that it was the respondent who was responsible to cause the accident more specifically in view of the defense raised, coupled with the fact that the alleged eye witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution at all. Thus, the view taken by the learned trial Court in acquitting the respondent is reasonable and is born out from the record which requires any interference. As such the appeal is dismissed. (Surinder Singh) Judge. November 17, 2008. (bm)