IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 83 of 2000 Reserved on: 7.4.2008 Date of decision: 28.04.2008 State of Himachal Pradesh ... Appellant Versus Narottam … Respondent Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. For the respondent: Mr. B.P. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Lokender Pal Thakur, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja , J. (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. against the judgment of the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghumarwin, dated 12.8.1996, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the accusation as against him under Sections 279/337/338 I.P.C. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 30.8.1992, complainant accompanied by one Gangi Devi and her daughter Sapna were coming back and when they reached at Kuthera Bazar at about 3.00PM, accused came there driving scooter which struck against her and the complainant and said Sapna who was on her lap also suffered 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 injuries. On this report, a case was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed as against the respondent who was tried by the learned trial Court leading to his acquittal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. On a perusal of the judgment passed by the learned trial Court, it is clear that the learned trial Court observed in Para-8 of the judgment that the statement of PW-1 is corroborated by PW-2, but she is closely related to the complainant and is also one of the injured. It was further observed as under: “Therefore being one of the injured and also being closely related with the complainant, both PW-2 and PW-1 can be safely held to be interested in the success of the present case and accordingly their statements qua negligent driving of the Scooter by the accused cannot be relied upon unless the same is corroborated by the statement of some independent witness which is lacking in the present case.” The above observations made by the learned trial Court shows that the learned trial Court is not aware as to how the evidence is to be appreciated. The mere fact that the complainant had also suffered injuries and the other eye witness is related to the complainant is not sufficient to discard the testimony of both these persons. The statement of the injured can be said to be relevant since they are affected persons and it is not necessary that these statements have to be corroborated by independent witnesses even though the witnesses were present or not at the spot. It is for the Court to weigh and give weightage to the 3 statement of the complainant as well as the other injured and being injured they can be said to be most material witnesses and how for the statement is to be relied upon is to be considered by the Court below. The Court has to see whether there were other witnesses present at the spot or not and in case no other witness was present, it cannot be said that these statements cannot be relied upon in the absence of independent corroboration. In case independent witnesses were available or had not been examined or they had not supported the prosecution story, it is for the Court to consider as to what value can be given to the statement of the complainant or the other injured. The findings were given that these witnesses are interested witnesses and these cannot be relied upon unless their statements are corroborated by some independent witnesses. These findings can be termed as perverse only in view of the fact that the learned trial Court did not discuss the statements of these two material witnesses and as to whether they are sufficient to prove the guilt of the respondent or not, their evidence cannot be appreciated for the first time by this Court to consider as to whether they were sufficient or not, to prove the guilt of the respondent under all these three sections. There has to be discussion of the evidence and once the learned trial Court has not discussed or made observations in regard to the evidence, I am of the opinion that considering these evidence for the first time will deprive the accused of an opportunity to challenge the findings that may be recorded by this Court by appreciating the evidence for the first time. 4 The above discussion clearly leads to the inference that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are perverse and the learned trial Court is required to reconsider the statements of the witnesses including PW-2 and then to conclude as to whether the evidence was sufficient or not to prove the guilt of the respondent under all these three sections. Therefore, the appeal is accepted and the case is remanded back to learned trial Court to hear the parties only and give its findings afresh. In view of the fact that the case is old one, steps shall be taken to dispose of the case by 30th June, 2008. Parties to appear before the learned trial Court i.e. Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ghumarwin, Court No. 1 on 26th May, 2008. ( V.K. Ahuja ) April 28, 2008 Judge (BSS) 5