1 HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No. 302/1997 Decided on: August 26 , 2010 State of H.P. …Appellant. VERSUS Rakesh Kumar ….Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B.Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr.Rajinder Dogra, Addl. AG with Mr.Anil Jaswal, Dy.AG. For the respondent: Mr. Vinay Thakur, Amicus Curiae R.B.Misra, Judge (Oral) The present criminal appeal has come up for consideration after the leave to appeal has been granted under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in reference to judgment dated 27.2.1997 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, HP in Sessions Trial No. 34 of 1996, thereby acquitting the respondent / accused for the offences under Sections 307, 427 of IPC and under Section132/184 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1985. 2. Earlier counsel, namely, Mr. Anshul Kumar Bansal, who was defending the present appeal, has now become Additional Advocate General, therefore, Mr. Vinay Thakur, Advocate is appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court. Whether the reporters of the local papers maybe allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. The prosecution case is that on 21.1.1996 at about 6.00 PM Sh. Birbal Ram, SI/SHO, Police Station, Talai, was coming from village Samlohal to the police station on a motor cycle No. HPB-68 which was being driven by Constable Daljit Singh at the relevant time and when they reached near Nehru Yuvak Kendra in village Plasla, they found that a truck bearing No. HIB-1705 was standing on the road in a starting condition and the driver of the motor cycle stopped the motor cycle 30 feet away from the truck and gave signal to the accused, being the driver of the said truck, to give pass to them but the accused, on seeing the police officials, immediately started reversing the truck in a high speed rashly and struck the back portion of the truck with the motor cycle causing injuries to constable Daljit Singh and damaged the motor cycle. SHO Balbir Singh saved himself by jumping from the motor cycle and when he went ahead towards the front side of the truck and gave signal to the accused(driver of the truck), the accused again turned the truck towards Birbal Ram, who in order to save himself, jumped towards the drain and, thereafter, the accused ran away along with the truck. However, case was registered under Sections 336,337,307/427 IPC. An FIR Ext PW-7/A was lodged in Police Station, Talai. 4. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as 7 prosecution witnesses, whereas, to his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC, accused denied the prosecution case. 5. PW-1 Daljit Singh, who was driving the motor cycle at the relevant time while SHO Birbal Ram was the pillion rider on the said motor cycle, has deposed that when they reached village 3 Plasla near Nehru Yuvak Kendra, they found one truck No. HIB 1705, standing on the road side in a starting condition. They stopped their motor cycle about 30 feet behind and despite continuous horn and deeper, said truck started reversing back and hit the front portion of the motor cycle from the back of the truck. On seeing this, they both jumped from the motor cycle in order ot save themselves and when SHO went towards the front side of the truck and gave signal to stop the truck, the said driver again turned the truck towards the SHO, who on seeing this jumped from the road towards the drain and saved himself. PW-1 was got medically examined. 6. PW-2, Sagar, an eye-witness of the occurrence, while supporting the prosecution case has stated that when SHO after getting down from the motor cycle tried to stop the truck, the truck driver fled away with the truck and in the cross examination he also deposited that when the truck driver was reversing the vehicle, the motor cycle which was coming in a high speed from behind, struck against the ‘dallah’ of the truck. 7, PW-3 Constable Lekh Raj, had mechanically examined the motor cycle and had issued report Ext PW-3/A, found mechanical defect in the motor cycle. PW-3 also examined the truck HIB 1705 mechanically and gave his report Ext PW- 3/B. According to him, headlight and other parts of the motor cycle were damaged. PW-4 Dr. Desh Raj examined PW-1 Daljit Singh and had issued MLC Ext PW-4/A, observing injuries on the person of Daljit Singh to be of simple in nature having been caused in an accident. PW-5 Constable Baldev Singh is a formal 4 witness. PW-7 ASI Gian Chand had recorded the FIR Ext PW-7/A on the basis of ruqa Ext PW-1/A 8. From the scrutiny of the prosecution witnesses and material on record, we notice that there could not be any bad intention or ill-motive of the driver Rakesh Kumar to cause damage to the motorcycle and to injure Daljit Singh, whereas in view of the testimony of PW-2, motorcycle was said to be driven with high speed from behind, hit ‘dallah’ of the truck. The front part of the motor cycle was not hit by the front part of the truck and was only hit by the back part of the truck. PW-2, Sagar, an independent witness, has very categorically deposed that the truck driver was reversing his vehicle, struck against the motor cycle. 9. In totality of the facts and circumstances and on scrutiny of the prosecution witnesses we do not find that the driver has any bad motive or intention to hit the motor cycle and, as such, offence under section 307 IPC could not be said to be attracted as the injuries were of simple nature and was caused by negligence only for which learned Sessions Court has found the accused/respondent guilty for the offence under section 427 IPC and under Sections 132/184 of the Motor Vehicle Act and had sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 427 IPC and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- under Sections 132/184 of Motor Vehicles Act, in default of which, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for one 5 month and has rightly acquitted the accused/respondent for the offence under section 307 IPC. 10. On scrutiny of the prosecution witnesses and material on record, we find no scope for interference in the impugned judgment of the trial court. The criminal appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. 11. We appreciate the assistance rendered by Mr. Vinay Thakur, Advocate, as Amicus Curiae 12. The bail bonds, furnished by the accused/ respondent, are discharged. ( R.B.Misra ), J. 26th August, 2010 ( V.K.Sharma ), J. (sl) 6