IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 3/2005 Date of decision: 27.7.2011 State of H.P. …..Appellant Versus Ram Bali ……Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Appellant: Mr. A.K. Bansal Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. Abhishek Sood, Advocate.. Surinder Singh, J. (Oral) State has challenged the acquittal of the respondent passed by the learned trial Court in criminal case No. 34/2 of 2002 decided on 11.10.2004, under Sections 279, 304-A Indian Penal Code and Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, by way of filing the present appeal. 2. Heard and gone through the evidence on record. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes - 2 - 3. Case of the prosecution is that on 30.1.2002 at about 9 a.m. at the place known as ‘Gullarwala’, respondent was allegedly driving the Scooter bearing registration No. HP12A-1133 rashly and negligently and hit Bhupinder Singh, a child of 5 years causing injuries on his head. Thereafter, he was taken to the Hospital for treatment by the respondent from where he was referred to P.G.I. Chandigarh. He remained hospitalized in General Hospital Sector 32 at Chandigarh where he succumbed to his injuries. 4. The autopsy of the dead body was conducted by PW9 Dr. Shub Mohan and the report is Ext. PW8/H. The possibility of the injuries in the motor vehicular accident has not been ruled out. 5. PW1 Surinder Kumar father of the deceased child lodged the report on 7.2.2002. Police took up the investigation, visited the spot, prepared the site plan Ext. PW8/B and recorded the statement of PW7 Dr. Alka Gupta who was running Sidhant Nursing Home at Baddi and recorded the statements of the alleged eye witnesses. 6. After completing the investigation, challan was presented in the Court for the trial of the respondent. He was accordingly chargesheeted, - 3 - tried and at the end of the trial, he was acquitted, as aforesaid on the ground that there was inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. Further, the statements of the prosecution witnesses were contradictory. 7. Though the complainant had tried to explain the delay in lodging the FIR yet, the delay will not be fatal in case the accident is proved to have taken place as alleged by the prosecution. 8. PW2 Pyare Ram, PW3 Ram Saran and PW4 Diwan Chand are stated to be the eye witnesses of the accident. Although PW2 aforesaid stated that the accident has taken place on account of rash and negligent driving by the respondent, but according to him he was working in the field and his back was towards the place where the accident actually took place. He stated that there were many persons standing at the spot and he could not say who was driving the scooter in question at the relevant time. He further stated that after the accident, respondent picked-up the child and took him to the Hospital for treatment, he was also accompanying him. Thereafter he informed the parents of the child. 9. PW4 Diwan Chand, the another eye witness stated that the accident took place as the - 4 - child suddenly crossed the road and darted against the scooter in question and at the tail-end of his cross examination, he stated that the accident had taken place on account of the fault of the child himself as he was crossing the road while running. 10. On the critical examination of the aforesaid evidence, two views appear in the statements of the witnesses. One set of the witnesses stated that the accident in question had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving by the respondent and the another set of the witnesses admitted that the child, in the process of crossing the road ,while running, suddenly darted against the scooter and the fault is attributed to the child. At the relevant time, the child was only 5 years old. He was unguarded and unassisted. However, he suddenly came in front of the vehicle. In absence of the evidence with respect to rash and negligent driving, the respondent cannot be held guilty on the strength of the above evidence which also favours the accused. 11. In view of this, the learned trial Court rightly acquitted the respondent by giving him the benefit of doubt. As such the acquittal recorded by - 5 - the learned trial Court cannot be interfered with. The appeal is without any merit, hence dismissed. 12. The respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him, at any time during the proceedings of this case. July 27, 2011 (Surinder Singh), (cm) Judge.