IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 279 of 2004. Date of Decision: 6th December, 2010. _______________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh ….Appellant. Versus Suresh Kumar ....Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? For the appellant : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Additional Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH, J (Oral). The respondent was convicted by the learned trial Court in case RBT No.54-II/02/2000, decided on 31st March, 2000/1st April, 2000, for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code with default clause and rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent felt aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment, as such filed Criminal Appeal Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - No.15-P/X of 2003 in the Court of Sessions. Vide its detailed judgment dated 3rd May, 2004, the learned Sessions Judge accepted his appeal and set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence. Against the acquittal of the respondent by the first appellate Court the instant appeal has been filed by the State. 2. Heard and gone through the record. 3. In short, the prosecution story can be stated thus. PW5 Vijay Kumar, S.D.O. in H.P.S.E.B. made a statement Ext.PW5/A under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that he was proceeding to Dharamshala in ambulance-jeep No.HPK-7206 being driven by the respondent. When they reached near Yol, they went to the military canteen to make some purchases. On return from the canteen around 12.45 p.m. when the jeep was on descent, a military ‘Shaktiman’ truck was coming from the opposite side. To avoid head-on collusion with the truck, the jeep rammed into M.I. Wilson. Some damage was also caused to the jeep. The matter was reported to the senior Officers of the Department. The said statement culminated into FIR Ext.PW10/A. 4. Police swung into action, visited spot and prepared site plan Ext.PW10/C. They also took the photographs of the place of the accident and that of - 3 - the dead-body. The inquest papers were filled-in and the dead-body was sent for the postmortem examination, which was conducted by PW7 Dr. R.K. Sharma. The deceased, as per doctor, has died on account of haemorrhagic shock. 5. The alleged offending jeep and its papers were taken into possession. The respondent was arrested, later enlarged on bail. 6. The jeep in question was got mechanically examined from PW8 Gurbaksh Singh. His report is Ext.PW8/A. 7. After completing the investigation, Challan was presented in the Court for the trial of the respondent. He was accordingly charge-sheeted, tried and at the end of trial, was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid, which was set aside in appeal filed by him by the Sessions Court, as aforesaid. 8. PW5 Vijay Kumar who is the complainant, categorically stated that the accident in question had taken place on account of fault of the deceased who was crossing the road and ‘Shaktiman’ truck was ahead of him. He nowhere stated that it was the respondent who was driving the vehicle in question at the relevant time. He was declared hostile by the prosecution as having resiled from his earlier statement. - 4 - 9. Further, PW3 did not say that the respondent was the driver of the alleged offending vehicle. He stated that the driver fled away from the spot, therefore, he could not identify. He also admitted that 258 Field Workshop and 242 Field Regiment are opposing to each other and in between there is a motor-able road where the accident had taken place and he also stated that at the relevant time the deceased was behind the truck, crossing the road. 10. PW5 Naib Subedar R.P. Yadav was also declared hostile as not supported the prosecution case and admitted in his cross-examination that the accident did not take place in his presence. 11. These are the only material witnesses examined by the prosecution to prove the offences charged against the respondent. 12. Although, the evidence with respect to the driving of the offending vehicle is sketchy, but there is no culpable negligence or rashness attributable to the respondent in the statements of any of the witnesses. Therefore, in my opinion, the findings of acquittal arrived at by the learned first appellate Court while setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence are borne out from the record, which require no interference. As such, - 5 - the appeal filed by the State sans merit, hence dismissed. 13. The respondent is hereby discharged of the bail bonds entered upon by him during the proceedings of this case. December 6, 2010. (Surinder Singh), J. (rc)