IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr M P (M) No.1117 of 2008 Date of decision:10th December, 2008 State of H P Appellant Versus Prabal Kumar Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr.J.S.Guleria, Law Officer. For the Respondent: Surinder Singh,J. (Oral) The State has challenged the acquittal of the respondent, for the offences punishable under sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code in police challan 3/I/2005/ 3/II/2005 decided on 21.6.2008 by the learned trial court. Heard and gone through the record of the case. Precisely, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 12.12.2004 at about 9.15 p.m. the complainant Kartar Singh was driving Bus, bearing registration No.HP39-8350. On returning from Manikaran from a school trip, when it reached near Aut, it is alleged that respondent 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?yes. 2 Prabal Kumar while driving Maruti Van No. HP-01-0121 at a high speed came from the opposite direction on the wrong side, struck the van against the bus, causing the said accident wherein respondent sustained grievous injuries and said Maruti van got completely damaged. Thereafter, the respondent was taken to the hospital. PW9 Doctor Mohan Lal examined him and issued medico-legal-certificate Ex.PW9/A. Police station was hardly 1 k.m. away from the site of accident but the bus driver PW1 Kartar Singh got recorded his statement next day i.e. on 13.12.2004 under section 154 Cr.P.C. Police took the photographs Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3 wherein both the vehicles have been shown on their own sides, which fact has been testified by the Investigating Officer.. The respondent has admitted the accident and imputed the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. However, no defense evidence was led. It is significant to note that the bus was having passengers, at the time of accident, but none of them was examined. PW3 Darshan Kumar did not support the case of the prosecution. The accident had taken place at a National Highway which is wide enough. It could not have occurred, unless there is rash and negligent driving either by the bus driver or van driver. From the record it transpires that respondent was hospitalized in the District Hospital, Kullu on the same day and Investigating Officer had applied for medical certificate and regarding his fitness to make the statement on 12.12.2004. Doctor found him not fit to make the statement, there is an endorsement of the Doctor to this effect on the application of Investigating Officer but this statement is falsified by PW9 (Doctor) Mohan Lal who stated that he got him medically examined on 13.12.2004 and the MLC Ex.PW9/A which 3 was issued on 13.12.2004 did not state about his admission in the hospital. Further the statement of the complainant which is alleged to have been recorded on 13.12.2004 is also not free from doubt for the reasons and its date appears to have been tampered with from 12.12.2004 to 13.12.2004. All these facts go to show that investigation of this case was done arbitrary, without taking statement of the respondent- accused with respect to the accident in question which was important in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case when both the parties during the trial imputed rash and negligent driving to each other and no independent witness was examined to prove that the accused-respondent was criminally rash and negligent to cause the accident. Therefore, the entire facts discussed above goes to show that the prosecution was unable to prove its case against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt, as such leave to appeal is declined. The petition stands disposed of. December 10, 2008 (Surinder Singh), (D) Judge.