IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 27 of 2002. Decided on: December 2, 2008. __________________________________________________________ State of H.P. ……..Appellant. Versus Harbinder Singh …..Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. For the respondent : Mr. R.K.Gautam, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Radhika Gautam, Advocate, vice Mr. J.R. Poswal, Advocate. _______________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH,J (oral): Heard and gone through the record. The State has challenged the acquittal of the respondent, passed by the learned trial court in criminal case No.265-II/97, decided on 26.5.2001, for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Succinctly, the facts shorn of unnecessarily details can be summed up thus. On 28.7.1997, Vikram Singh was driving his Van No.HP-37-0317. He was accompanied by PW2 Sanjiv Kumar and PW6 Sandeep Kumar from Ludhiana to Maranda. At about 4 p.m., when their vehicle reached near village Bhawala, a Matadoor No.DL-ICC-6805, Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - allegedly driven by the respondent, came from the opposite side in a very high speed hit the right side of the Van of the complainant, causing damage to his Van and also the injuries to the complainant. The matter was reported to the police at about 10.30 p.m. Thereafter a formal FIR was registered. The police visited the spot and prepared the site plan Ex.PW4/A. After the accident, the positions of the vehicles were changed. PW3 Sukhwinder Singh, Mechanic examined both the vehicles. He submitted the report Ex.PW3/A. After completing the investigation, the challan was presented in the court for trial of the respondent. Finding a prima-facie case against the respondent, the notice of accusation was put to him under the aforesaid sections. The prosecution led its evidence and the respondent was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He denied the case of the prosecution with respect to the circumstances put to him. The respondent did not examine any witness in defence. At the end of the trial, he was acquitted and his acquittal has been assailed in this appeal. At the very outset, I would like to say that none of the passengers of the Matadoor were examined during the trial of the case. PW1 Vikram Singh, driver, PW2 Sanjiv Kumar and PW6 Sandeep Kumar are closely related to each other and their testimonies are required to be closely scrutinized. - 3 - It is also pertinent to note that the complainant Vikram Singh was declared hostile, according to him, he could not recognize the driver of the Matadoor nor he knew his name, but in his cross-examination conducted by the learned Prosecutor, he deviated from this version and deposed that the respondent was the driver of the Matadoor. The learned Prosecutor did not further explore as to under what circumstances, he made such a statement in his examination-in-chief. Further PW2 Sanjiv Kumar has given somewhat a different story. He stated on seeing the Matadoor, PW1 stopped his vehicle and the Matadoor hit the Van which fact has not been stated by PW1 in his statement. The site plan Ex.PW4/A prepared by the Investigating Officer has clearly indicated that both the vehicles in question were repositioned. This fact coupled with the statements of PW1, PW2 and PW3, the place of the accident also appears to be doubtful, as PW2 says that accident occurred at the curve, whereas PW1 has stated that the curve was ahead of the place of the alleged accident. The delay in lodging FIR is not explained when the accident had taken place at 4.30 p.m., why the FIR was lodged at 10.30 p.m., more specifically when the police station was only 3 K.M. away from the place of alleged accident. - 4 - Thus, the statements of the witnesses aforesaid are not sufficient to conclude the guilt of the respondent beyond a reasonable doubt that he was driving the Matadoor in question rashly or negligently, making himself responsible for the said accident. The conclusion arrived at by the learned trial court, for the acquittal of the respondent is borne out from the record, which requires no interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him during the proceedings of the case. Send down the records. (Surinder Singh), Judge. December 2, 2008. (Pds)