IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA: Cr.A.No.279/2001 Date of Decision :12th May, 2008. State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus: Sita Ram. …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for judgment?1 For the appellant: Mr.Vivek Thakur, Addl. Advocate Generalwith Ms.Shubh Mahajan, Dy. Advocate General. . For Respondent. Mr.Baldev Singh, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J(Oral). The present appeal arises out of the judgment dated 24th October, 2000 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist, Class, Bilaspur in Criminal Case No. 195/2 of 1998 titled as State Vs. Sita Ram, acquitting the accused of the charged offence under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A I.P.C. As per the case of the prosecution complainant- Chuni Lal (PW-1) saw tractor No.HP-24-0556 being driven by the accused, roll down the hill about 10-15 feet into the ‘Nalla’ near a place known as Kuddi. Due to the accident, both the accused and the other occupant Sanjay Kumar received injuries and were rushed to the District Hospital, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Bilaspur where they were referred to the State Hospital at Shimla, but, however, Sanjay Kumar died on the way. Statement of complainant under Section 154 Cr.P.C. (Ext.PW- 1/A) was recorded based on which, F.I.R.No.132/98 dated 27th August, 1998 (Ext.PW-6/A) was registered with Police Station, Barmana under Sections 279 and 337 I.P.C. The matter was investigated and the medical record of the deceased and the accused were taken on record. M.L.C. (Ext.PW-11/C), inquest report (Ext.PW-11/D) and post mortem report (Ext.PW-5/B) of deceased Sanjay Kumar were taken on record. The vehicle in question was seized and the documents were taken on record vide Fard Ext.PW-11/E and Ext.PW-11/F. The vehicle was also got mechanically examined and mechanical report (Ext.PW-12/A) was taken on record. Photographs (Ext.PW-9/A and Ext.PW-9/B) were also taken on record. With the completion of the investigation, the challan was filed in the Court for trial. The notice of accusation was put to the accused for the commission of the offence under Sections 279 and 304 IPC to which he did not plead guilty and claim trial. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses and the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was also recorded. Appreciating the material on record, the court below acquitted the accused of the charged offence for the 3 reason that the prosecution had failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and there was nothing on record to show the complicity of the accused in the commission of the charged offence. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. Complainant-Chuni Lal (PW-1) in whose presence the accident took place has, in fact, proved the innocence of the accused. He has deposed that he could not state as to how the accident in question took place. He could not specify as to whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent acts of the accused. He, in fact, clarified that he was not present on the spot at the relevant time. Even though this witness has not been hostile, but, however, he has proved the innocence of the accused. He has also not confronted with his earlier statement (Ext.PW-11/A) recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. nor was he re-examined. Sh. Subhash Chand (PW-2), in fact, is not a spot witness. He has only narrated what was told to him by the deceased Sanjay Kumar. He simply deposed that Sanjay Kumar was taken to the hospital for medical treatment. According to this witness deceased Sanjay Kumar had not narrated anything else about the accident which would prove the guilt of the accused. Pawan Kumar (PW-3) has not stated how the accident took place. He could not also state that the accident occurred due to the fault of the accused. 4 Dr.C.R.Verma (PW-5) has proved the post mortem report (Ext.PW-5/B). No doubt, deceased Sanjay Kumar unfortunately died in the accident. But, however, it cannot be said that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the accused. It is not the case of the prosecution that the tractor was being driven at a high speed. There is nothing on record to prove the guilt of the accused. It cannot be said that the accused was driving the tractor on a public highway in a rash and negligent manner. In the absence of any clear, cogent and convincing evidence, it cannot be said that prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused. The accused has himself sustained injuries in the accident and it appears that due to coming in of the road, the tractor rolled down in which both the occupants sustained injuries. The court below has appreciated the material in its entirety. There is no perversity or illegality in the same. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Barati Vs. State of U.P. (1974 (4) SCC 258) & Ramji Surja Padvi and another Vs. State of Maharashtra (1993 (3) SCC 629) I see no reasons to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds are discharged. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. May 12, 2008(R) 5