IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No.519 of 2002 Date of decision : April 20, 2009 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Hem Raj …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. Dharamvir Sharma, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J ( Oral ) State has appealed against the judgment, dated 30th March, 2002, of the trial Magistrate, whereby respondent, who was tried for offences, punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 of the Indian Penal Code and some punitive provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, has been acquitted. 2. Respondent was sent up for trial, on the allegations that on 28th February, 1997, around 1.15 p.m., he drove scooter No.HP-39-4440 in so rash or negligent a manner as to endanger human life or personal safety of others, near Kotwali Bus Stand Dharamshala, and while so driving he hit a lady, named Satya Devi (PW-1), who was crossing the road, as a result of which the said lady sustained injuries, including a grievous injury. 3. Trial Court has acquitted the respondent holding that the evidence on record does not establish that the Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… scooter, in question, was being driven by the respondent, when the accident took place. 4. I have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General as also the learned counsel for the respondent and gone through the record. 5. Injured Satya Devi (PW-1) in the earliest version, which she gave to the police in her statement, under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Ex. DA, very categorically stated that she did not know the number of the scooter as also the person who was driving it and that after hitting her the scooterist fled the scene alongwith the scooter. She also stated that she was taken to the hospital by two boys. However, while in the witness box as PW-1, she stated that it was the accused who was driving the scooter that hit her and that the accused after hitting her took her to the hospital and after dropping her at the hospital disappeared. She was duly confronted with her statement, under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Ex. DA, particularly with those portions in which she stated that she did not know the scooterist and that after hitting her, the scooterist drove away from the spot and that two other boys took her to the hospital for treatment. She denied having stated these portions, in the statement, Ex. DA. PW-2 Kali Dass, who claimed to have witnessed the accident, very categorically stated that he did not know who was driving the scooter. In view of the abovestated position, it cannot be said that the trial Court has committed any illegality in …3… acquitting the respondent, with the finding that the identity of the accused as the person who was driving the scooter, at the relevant time, does not stand established. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. April 20, 2009(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J