IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 439 of 2004 Date of decision: 15.11.2010 State of H.P. Appellant Versus Puran Chand Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate. Per V.K.Ahuja, J.: This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. under Section 378 Cr. P.C. against the judgment of the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sundernagar, dated 15.7.2004, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the notice of accusations put up to him for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 I.P.C. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 22.1.1999, at about 8.15 P.M., statement of complainant Devki Nandan was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C., on the basis of which an FIR was registered by the police. He alleged in his statement that on 22.1.1999 he was going on foot from Kanaid and at 7.15 P.M., a Motorcycle came from behind at a fast speed and Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 struck against him and he fell down and suffered injuries on various parts of his body. He further alleged that he was brought to the hospital for treatment by one Pappu and Dayal Singh. He alleged that the accident took place due to rash or negligent driving of person driving the Motorcycle. On this basis, a case was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed as against the respondent for the offences detailed above and he was tried by the learned trial Court, 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 the prosecution has examined 9 witnesses in all and statement of the complainant only, who was the only eye witness can be said to be most material, whether it proves the case of the prosecution or not. PW-1 Devki Nandan, is the complainant, who has stated that the Motorcycle struck against him when he was going on foot. He fell down and suffered injuries. He was brought to the hospital by one Pappu. He simply stated that the accident had taken place due to the negligence of the person driving the motorcycle. However, he did not state specifically firstly that the Motorcycle was being driven by the respondent but in further examination-in- chief, he stated that the vehicle was being driven by the respondent present in Court. In cross-examination, he has stated that he had told the police the name of motorcyclist, who was driving the Motorcycle in his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and he was confronted with his statement Ext. PW1/A in this regard, in which it was not alleged. He clearly stated that he had not identified the driver at the spot and learnt about the driver in the hospital. He 3 admitted having filed a claim petition in regard to this case, but denied his knowledge in case he has mentioned the name of driver of the Motorcycle as Krishan Chand. But the accused in his defence has also proved in evidence the copy of the claim petition filed by the claimant Ext. DW1/A, which is certified copy of the claim petition preferred by the complainant. A perusal of the same shows that the claim petition was filed by the complainant Devki Nandan after five months of the occurrence i.e. on 15.6.1999, which shows that he must have verified the facts when he filed the claim petition as against one Krishan Chand, who is not the accused in this case. The complainant has not alleged in his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C., the name of the person driving the Motorcycle and this was so stated by him also for the first time in Court during the trial of the case. However, the fact remains that he impleaded one Krishan Chand as the driver at the relevant time and the trial Court disbelieved the prosecution story that the accused was driving the vehicle at the relevant time. There is no other witness to the occurrence and, therefore, the reasoning given by the learned trial Court that the prosecution has failed to prove its case cannot be said to be perverse, calling for an interference by this Court. 5. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the respondent shall stand discharged. November 15, 2010 ( V.K. Ahuja ) (BSS) Judge 4