IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 153 of 2002 Date of decision: 12.12.2008 State of H.P. …. Appellant. Vs. Hardev Sharma ... Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant-State: Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy.Advocate General. For the respondent: Sh. M.S.Thakur, Advocate. Per Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) This appeal is directed against the judgement of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, in Criminal Case No. 65/2 of 1999 dated 27th November, 2001 whereby the accused has been acquitted of having committed offences punishable under Section 279 read with Section 337 IPC and also under Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that complainant Manohar Singh, PW-1, lodged a complaint with the Police Station Lakkar Bazar to the effect that on 15.3.1999 when he was proceeding from his residence i.e. Ever Sunny, Long Wood, Shimla towards his shop at Middle Bazar, Shimla and reached near the Lakkar Bazar Bus Stand, a Maruti Van not bearing any registration number came from behind in a high speed and hit him. He later came to know that the Maruti Van was being driven by the accused who is also a resident of Ever Sunny. The police took the complainant to the hospital where he was treated. He had suffered simple injuries. After completion of investigation, challan was filed and the accused was sent up for trial. While appearing in Court Manohar Singh has stated that after he was hit by the Maruti van, the driver of the Maruti van, i.e. the accused stopped 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment yes. the vehicle and told him that he would just park the vehicle and come back to assist him. In Court Manohar Singh also states that two other persons were accompanying him, who were just walking just behind him, i.e. PW-2 Jai Singh and one Shri Manoj Kumar. Manoj Kumar has not been examined. In cross-examination, the complainant was confronted with his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. wherein there is no mention of the fact that the driver of the vehicle had stopped the vehicle and had told the complainant that he would come back after parking the vehicle. There is no manner of doubt that an F.I.R is not an encyclopedia of the entire occurrence. It need not be very detailed. However, in the present case, we are dealing with a case where the complainant had only suffered simple injuries. If the accused, who was already known to the complainant had stopped the vehicle and talked to the complainant, there is no reason why the complainant could not have himself straight-way stated this fact to the police. In the F.I.R, which was recorded at the first instance, his version is that later on he was informed that the vehicle was being driven by the accused. It is thus apparent that the complainant had not seen the accused driving the vehicle. Had he done so, there was nothing which prevented him from naming the accused of his own at the time of the lodging of the F.I.R. This cast a grave doubt about the prosecution story. The statement of the complainant has to be gone through with very greater caution in view of this apparent improvement in the statement. The Investigating Officer in his statement has stated that when the complaint of Manohar Singh was recorded no other person was accompanying him and the statements of the witnesses were recorded later when they were produced by the complainant. The alleged witnesses including PW-2 Jai Singh are neighours of the complainant. If they had been present on the spot the natural occurrence of events would have been that they would have accompanied the complainant to the hospital for his treatment. These factors have weighed with the learned trial Court while acquitting the accused. No other witness was associated by the police in regard to the accident. The accident took place at about 10.00 a.m when there is a lot of rush on this road. There are shops near the place of occurrence. There is no reason why independent witnesses could not have been associated with the investigation. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I find no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. December 12, 2008 (Deepak Gupta), J. ™