1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cri. Appeal No.68 of 2004 Reserved on : 25th June, 2010 Date of Decision: 10th August, 2010 State of Himachal Pradesh Appellant Versus Vinod Kumar Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant: Mr. Ram Murthi Bisht, Dy. Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J. For an offence, which is alleged to have been committed on 4.11.2000, accused was put to trial. In terms of judgment dated 11.12.2003 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Court No.4, Shimla in Criminal Case No.22/2 of 2001, titled as State of H.P. vs. Vinod Kumar, accused stand acquitted of the charged offence. It is the case of the prosecution that on 4.11.2000, ASI Parkash Chand, was present in D.D.U Hospital, where Shri Chaman Dilta got his statement (Ext.PW-2/A) recorded. In the said complaint/statement, it is alleged that his son Sidharath, aged 10 years was going to Vikasnagar in a private Bus No.HP-07-2702. When the Bus reached near Vikasnagar Bus Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? 2 stop and Sidharath was alighting from the same, the accused without any warning drove away the bus in a rash and negligent manner as a result of which Sidharath fell down and the corner of the rear tyre of bus crossed over his left foot as a result of which he sustained injuries. 2. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR (Ext.PW-7/A) dated 4.11.2000 was registered with the Police Station, Shimla East under Sections 279, 337 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The investigation was carried out by the police and Sidharath was got medically examined. MLC (Ext.PW-1/A) was obtained by the police. The vehicle was got mechanically examined and mechanical report (Ext.PW-6/A) was taken on record. 3. With the completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court for trial. Notice of accusation for having committed an offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 201, IPC was put to the accused to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. The statement of accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C. was recorded. The Court below considered the record in entirety and acquitted the accused of the charged offence, hence the present appeal. 4. In order to prove the fact that the accused had been negligent in driving the vehicle due to which Sidharath suffered injuries, statements of relevant witnesses i.e. Sidharath (PW-4) and Ram Kishore (PW-9) need to be examined. 5. According to Sidharath (PW-4), he was alighting from the Bus when the driver of the bus suddenly drove away the Bus. The number of the bus was noted down by his friends Shubham Chauhan and Durgesh Nandan. None of these boys were associated in the investigation or examined as witnesses. This witness only states that at the relevant time the Bus was being 3 driven by the accused in a rash and negligent manner. The identity of the driver from the testimony of this witness is thus proved, but, however, what was the speed of the bus? How and in what manner was the bus being driven in a negligent manner has not been so stated. His statement does not inspire confidence for the simple reason that he fell down while alighting the bus. He could not have witnessed the incident, as has been so stated by him by standing behind the driver. Admittedly he has alighted from the rear door and not from the front door. 6. Now Shri Ram Kishore (PW-9), a tea stall owner is alleged to have seen the occurrence of the incident. He has been declared hostile. In spite of having been cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor there is nothing material in his testimony which would even prima facie link the accused to the alleged crime. The involvement of the bus in question is thus not clearly established on record. The statements of the complainant (PW-2) cannot be believed as he has not witnessed the occurrence of incident. He had no reason to be there at the spot at the relevant time. No doubt he brought the child to the hospital, but, however, that fact by itself would not prove that he had witnessed the occurrence of the incident. 7. From the material on record, it cannot be said that the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the fact that the accused was driving the vehicle in rash or negligent manner due to which the child sustained injuries. 8. The accused has had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down in Mohammed Ankoos and others vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, (2010) 1 SCC 94, it cannot be said that the Court below has not 4 correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the persons has resulted into travesty of justice. No ground for interference is called for. The present appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged. 10th August, 2010 (Sanjay Karol) (C) Judge.