HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.A.No.: 429 of 2003. Decided on: 20.5.2010 State of H.P. ………Appellant. Versus Mateshwar Sharma ……Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellant: Mr.J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr.Ashwani Kumar Sharma, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P., dated 20.5.2003, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the notice of accusation put to him under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC and Sections 177 and 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that an accident took place in which one Vivek Raja, son of Shri Subhash Chand Rana was hit by a van on 17.5.1999. On 21.5.1999, a report was lodged with the Superintendent of Police, Kangra by the father of the injured, namely, Subhash Chand about this accident. On this report, a case was registered and after investigation, the challan was ______________________________ Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - filed before the learned trial Court who put notice of accusations to the respondent and tried him for the aforesaid offences, leading to his acquittal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 4. On appraisal of the evidence led by the prosecution, it is clear that there is practically no evidence to establish the identity of the accused that he was driving the vehicle in question at the relevant time and even the identity of the van number involved in the accident was not established. PW-1 Subhash Chand is the complainant and father of the injured, who, at the time of accident, was sitting in his shop and is not a witness to the accident. He learnt about the van number and after four days, lodged the report with the police. PW-2 Vivek Rana, who suffered the injuries as a result of the accident in question, has clearly stated that he did not notice the van number at the relevant time and he learnt at Nagrota Bagwan subsequently about the van number. Thus, he is not sure about the van number or the person who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time. 5. PW-3 Mamta Devi came to the road on hearing the noise and found that Vivek had suffered injuries but she does not know as to how he suffered the injuries. She was declared as hostile and was allowed to be cross examined by the learned APP appearing for the State. PW-4 Yogesh Sharma has stated that he learnt that the accident - 3 - had taken place when two ladies had brought an injured to his Clinic. He is not an eye witness to the occurrence and was also declared as hostile and was allowed to be cross examined. PW-5 Narender Kumar, a neighbour of the injured, had come to the spot after his mother and other ladies had reached at the spot. He also stated that he saw the vehicle from 70-80 feet and as such, it is clear from a perusal of his statement that he had not witnessed the occurrence. PW-6 Usha Devi, mother of the injured PW-2 Vivek Rana, has stated that she had witnessed the occurrence and had also given the van number. In case the van number was known to her on the same day, why the report was lodged on the fourth day in which the van number was given. Her statement does not suggest that she had witnessed the occurrence. There is no evidence led by the prosecution to establish the identity of the van or the person who was driving the van at the relevant time. 6. Keeping in view the evidence led by the prosecution, the conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court and as such there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondent shall stand discharged. May 20, 2010 (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge.