IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.A.No.311 of 2001 Judgment reserved on 1.3.2008 Date of decision 7.3.2008 State of H.P. Appellant Versus Ajeet Singh Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mr.Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. with Mr.Anil Kumar Jaswal, Dy. A. G. For the respondent: Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sharma, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, J. The respondent was prosecuted in Police Challan No.662-1/99/96 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.2 Mandi District Mandi under Sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and was acquitted on 15.12.2000. The present appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment of acquittal dated 15.12.2000. The brief facts in nutshell as gathered from the judgment of the trial court are that on the basis of statement of Kishan Pal (PW-1) FIR Ex.PW- 5/A was registered against the accused person. PW-1 has stated in his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. that while he was in his shop, the children of the school of Nagchalla were returning to their houses when Kumari Babli daughter of Nand Lal (PW-2) reached the spot on the road side a van bearing No.DDA-667 came from the side of Mandi which was being driven rashly and negligently by the accused Ajeet Singh and struck against Kumari Babli (PW-4) causing injuries to her. After the completion of the investigation challan was prepared and presented before the Court. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as nine 1 Whether reporters of local papers are allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 witnesses. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. The trial court acquitted the respondent on 15.12.2000. The State has filed this appeal against his acquittal. Mr. .Rajinder Dogra learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Anil Kumar Jaswal, learned Deputy Advocate General had strenuously argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the respondent and the trial court has mis-interpreted the evidence which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sharma learned counsel for the respondent had supported the judgment dated 15.12.2000. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case carefully. PW-1 Kishan Pal has stated that on 19.6.1995 at about 10.30 a.m. when he was at his shop, a van bearing registration No.DDA-667 came from the side of Mandi and struck against Kumari Babli (PW-4) and due to the impact of the van she became unconscious and was shifted to CHC Ratti by him. He had admitted that Kumari Babli received injuries while she was trying to cross the road suddenly. He categorically stated that the father of the girl reached the spot after the incident. However, PW-2 Nand Lal, father of PW-4 has stated that he alongwith one Murari Lal witnessed the accident resulting in injuries to his daughter. Murari Lal was not cited as a witness by the prosecution. PW-3 Dr. S. K. Malhotra had issued the MLC Ex.PW-3/A. Kumari Babli has appeared as PW-4 and stated that when she tried to cross the road a vehicle came from Mandi side and struck against her. There are material contradictions in the statements of PW1 and PW-2 about the manner in which the accident had taken place on 19.6.1995. PW-1 had stated that he had witnessed the accident and removed the girl to CHC Ratti and the father of Kumari Babli reached the spot after the accident had already taken place. On the other hand PW-2 has stated that he had seen the accident with Murari Lal. It is apparent from the statements of PW-1 and PW-4 that she had tried to cross the road resulting in accident. It cannot be presumed that the accused was 3 driving the van rashly and negligently since the van stopped after the accident within a distance of ½ feet from the place where it struck Kumari Babli. If the vehicle had been driven rashly and negligently it could not have stopped within a distance of ½ feet and there were bound to be skid marks on the road at the place of accident. There are no skid marks as is evident from the photographs. In view of the foregoing discussion the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the respondent. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the accused-respondent are discharged. March 7,2008(g) ( Rajiv Sharma ),J.