IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No.730 of 2001 Date of decision: 21.11.2008 State of H.P. Appellant Versus Dilip Kumar @ Raju. Respondent ___________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the Appellant: Mr Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondent: Mr Imran Khan, Advocate, vice Mr.S.D.Gill, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J . (Oral) The State has challenged the acquittal of the respondent, passed by the learned trial court in Case No.215 /2 of 95 decided on 1.8.2001, under sections 279,304(A) and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. In short, the prosecution case can be summed up thus: On 22.11.1994 Karam Singh (PW1) along with his brother Sant Ram was travelling in a Jeep bearing registration No.HP-30-0551, from Shimla to Karsog. Respondent was its driver, 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?yes 2 who was alleged to be drunk. Karam Singh got down to urinate but driver took the said vehicle ahead. When it reached near Hanuman Temple, near Sunni Bazaar, Shimla, it struck against the hill, as a result of which, the occupants of the Jeep sustained injuries and caused death of Sant Ram on the spot. The matter was reported to the police. FIR was registered, spot map was prepared, autopsy of the dead body was performed and other injured were medically examined. After completing the investigation, a challan was presented in the court for the trial of the respondent. Notice of accusation was put to the respondent- accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove its case, the prosecution examined its witnesses and the respondent was also examined, under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. At the end of the trial, the respondent-accused was acquitted by the learned trial court on the ground that there was no evidence put forth by the prosecution to prove the rash and negligent driving of the respondent, which has allegedly caused the accident. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and re- appraised the evidence on record. PW1 Karam Singh did not support the case of the prosecution, as such, he was declared hostile. He also did not say anything about the rash and negligent driving by the respondent. Another witness Kewal Singh (PW5) Mechanic instead of supporting 3 the case of the prosecution has probabalized the defence by saying that the accident was attributable to breakage of Brake Pipe, which fact has been corroborated by PW 12 Kanshi Ram. PW11 Roop Lal was an occupant of the bus, which was behind the Jeep in question. According to him, PW1 Karam Singh had de-boarded from the jeep and occupied the seat in the bus. He did not say what was the cause of accident. According to him, respondent could be in a better position to explain about the cause of accident. Examination of PW14 Virbhadar Singh also could not improve the case of the prosecution, even he has resiled from his earlier statement, recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This was in all the evidence led by the prosecution to support its case. On the scrutiny of the above evidence, in my opinion, I did not find any legal evidence which could convert the acquittal passed by the learned trial court into conviction, as such the appeal filed by the State is dismissed. November 21, 2008 (Surinder Singh),J. (D)