Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.666 of 2001. Dated of Decision: November 18, 2008. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- State of H.P. ……… Appellant. Versus Surjit Singh. ……. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Appellant : Mr. J.S.Guleria, Law Officer. For the Respondent : Mr. Ajay Dhiman, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J (oral): The State has challenged the acquittal of respondent for the offences under Sections 279, 227 and 304–A of the Indian Penal Code, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Paonta Sahib, in Criminal Case No.153/2 of 1998, decided on 5.7.2001, on the grounds that the learned trial court did not appreciate the evidence of the prosecution in the right perspective. Much stress has been laid by Shri J.S. Guleria, learned Law Officer representing the State that the statement of complainant PW4 Ajay Kumar Bali is worth inspiring confidence. He is the witness of the alleged accident and has proved the rash and negligent driving by the respondent, of his Maruti Van bearing registration No.DL-3CE-6386. 2 Shri Ajay Dhiman, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the grounds of acquittal recorded by the learned trial court. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and have carefully examined the records of the case. Precisely, the prosecution case is that on 2.6.1998, at about 9.45 a.m., the complainant, a Forest Ranger, posted in Paonta Sahib range, was on his scooter and was going to the office of DFO and Ved Prakash (deceased) a Superintendent in the office of D.F.O. was ahead of him on his own scooter No.HP-17-1164. When they reached near “Summit Automobiles” in Shamsherpur, it is alleged that the Maruti Van being driven by respondent came from the opposite side in rash and negligent manner, left its own side and came to the wrong side and hit the scooter of deceased Ved Prakash causing injuries to him. The accident was also witnessed by PW2 Sanjay Singh, a shopkeeper nearby. The injured was taken in the said Van to private clinic of Dr. Inderjeet Singh Pawar at Paonta Sahib. There he was given first-aid. Thereafter the injured was taken to “Samadhan Medical Centre” Dehradun where his CT scan was conducted. On 3.6.1998, he was referred to PGI Chandigarh, where he died on 9.6.1998 and his postmortem was conducted on the next day i.e. on 10.6.1998. The FIR was lodged by PW4 Ajay Kumar Bali in police station Paonta Sahib on 3.9.98 against the respondent and 3 the cause of delay was stated that the injured was required to be given the immediate medical aid and he had taken him to the private hospital to Dehradun and on his return reported the matter to the police. Police visited the spot and prepared the site plan Ex.PW9/A and took into possession the Maruti Van of respondent on 3.6.1998 vide memo Ex.PW1/B. The Investigating Officer noticed a dent on the driving side door of the said vehicle and also on the mudguard. On 9.6.1998, the mechanical examination was conducted by PW5 C.Subhash Chand, a Mechanic in the police department. He only noticed a dent on the driving side door of the Van but did not make any reference of any dent on the mudguard. The police took into possession the medical reports from the private clinic, hospital and also the postmortem report from PGI. After completing the investigation, the challan was presented in the court for trial of the respondent for the offences aforesaid. The trial was conducted against the respondent and at the end of the trial, he was acquitted, on the grounds that the alleged eye witness PW2 Sanjay Singh has supported the case of the accused respondent to the effect that the scooter of the deceased hit the stationary Maruti Van of respondent in front of his shop. The learned trial court also took into consideration other material contradictions appearing in the statements of the complainant and also the Investigating Officer. In fact there are only two material witnesses in the case. One is PW2 Sanjay Singh and another complainant PW4 Ajay 4 Kumar Bali. Sanjay Singh has not supported the case of the prosecution, rather he has substantiated the defence taken by the accused as aforesaid and further deposed in his cross- examination that the deceased-scooterist was in a high speed. According to PW4 Ajay Kumar Bali, he was driving his scooter bearing registration No.HP-17-2228, and had witnessed the accident. He also stated that after the accident, he took the injured Ved Prakash in the same Van to the Dr. Pawar’s clinic, but according to PW6 Dr. Inderjeet Singh Pawar, the accused respondent was only accompanying the injured to his clinic and there was no other person with him. The above narration of PW4 stands falsified. Further the accident had taken place on 2.6.1998 and the FIR was lodged by PW4 on 3.6.1998 explaining the delay but his very presence on the spot appears to be doubtful. Even he having accompanied the injured to Dehradun is also not substantiated by any direct or indirect evidence. PW2 Sanjay Singh has not been proved to be falsely supporting the defence version. Thus, on going through the statements of both these witnesses two views are deducible, it is a settled law that the benefit of the view favouring the accused has to be given to him. Further it is significant to note that after the accident, the injured was taken to Clinic of PW6 Inderjeet Singh Pawar, where he was attended by the doctor on 2.6.98. The OPD slip Ex.PW6/A does not refer to any injury on the head of the deceased. The doctor at the time of his examination noted 5 some injury on the left arm and swelling on the left side of the neck and the injured was complaining pain in the left hand thus he was prescribed some medicines. Ex.PW7/A is the discharge card of the ‘Samadhan hospital’ where his CT scan was conducted and some injury was found on the right side behind 4th ventricle on the right side thus he was referred to PGI Chandigarh, where he expired on 9.6.1998 at 2.50 p.m. as indicated in the postmortem report Ex.PX. The pages 2,4 and 8 of the postmortem report are missing. At page No.3 of the said report, the injuries found on the dead body have been mentioned, but there is no injury on the right side of the head as indicated in the discharge card Ex.PW7/A. The cause of death has been given asphyxia due to bilateral aspiration pneumonia. Thus it is also doubtful that the death had occurred on account of the injuries caused in the said accident. Therefore, in these circumstances, in my considered opinion the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the respondent for the offences charged beyond reasonable a doubt, accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him at any time during the proceedings of the case. Send down the records. November 18, 2008. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.