IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 368 of 2001 Date of decision: 28.04.2008 State of Himachal Pradesh ... Appellant Versus Joginder Singh … Respondent Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. For the respondent: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja , J. (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. against the judgment of the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Una, dated 16.3.2001, vide which the judgment passed by learned trial Court convicting the respondent under Section 279 I.P.C. and Section 177 of the M.V. Act. was set aside and the respondent was acquitted of the accusation under both the Sections. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 31.8.1993, at about 9.15 PM, a statement was made by one Amar Chand, driver of truck No. HPR No. 867 before a police officer at old Bus Stand Una. It was alleged by the complainant Amar Chand that he was taking his 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 truck loaded with sugar and he was accompanied by son of owner namely Kala Ram and conductor Bakshish and when the truck reached at about 8.30PM near Kal-Singhi, a truck came from the other side bearing No. HPG 1296 at a fast speed. It came on the wrong side and struck on the one side of the truck being driven by the complainant. The truck was partially damaged but no one suffered injuries. On this report, a case was registered against the respondent who was tried for the offences by the learned trial Court resulting in his conviction, which was set aside by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. A perusal of the record shows that PW-8 Amar Chand, driver of the truck, had stated that he made a statement to the police at Old Bus Stand, Una on the same date at bout 9.15PM. However, when the said driver of the truck appeared in the witness box as PW-8, he came up with another version that he had not lodged any report, but this report was lodged by Kala alias Harish Kumar. PW-1 Harish Kumar son of owner of the truck who was with them at the relevant time. PW-9 Bakshish Singh son of the complainant and driver of the truck PW-8 was examined and he stated that this report was lodged by the son of the owner Kala alias Harish and his father has not gone from the spot at all and he remained present with him at the spot. The said Kaka alias Harish Kumar was examined as PW-1 and did not state that any report was lodged by him with the police or he even went to lodge the report with the police. This contradiction was considered by the learned appellate Court and he 3 did not believe the prosecution story apart from the other reasons given for disbelieving the prosecution story. A perusal of the statement of PW-8 Amar Chand shows that the truck was being driven by respondent, but he did not state anything in regard to the speed of the truck. PW-9 Bakshish Singh and son of the driver had also not stated anything about the speed, though he stated that the speed was alright and their truck was damaged due to the act of the respondent. PW-8 has also not stated anything about the speed. A plea was also taken during the cross- examination of the witness that the front tyre of the truck burst and the truck tilted towards the other truck being driven by the respondent. But the possibility cannot be ruled out since it has come up in the statement of PW-9 that the Gullia of the tyre had been broken at that time which does substantiate the plea of the respondent to some extent. From the above discussion, it is clear that there are no specific findings in regard to the speed of truck, the manner in which accident took place and the view taken by the learned appellate Court in holding that the guilt of the respondent was not established beyond any reasonable cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court. In view of the above, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed accordingly. Bail bonds furnished by the respondent are discharged. ( V.K. Ahuja ) April 28, 2008 Judge (BSS) 4