IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.440 of 2004. Date of Decision: 20th July, 2011. ____________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh ….Appellant. Versus Kamaldev Singh ……..Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? For the appellant : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Additional Advocate General. For the respondent : Ms. Meena Thakur, Advocate, vice Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH, J. (Oral) : Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court in Criminal Case No.54-I-03/57-II-03 dated 30.6.2004, under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Succinctly, facts giving rise to the present appeal can be stated thus. On 3.9.2002, at about 6.00 p.m., the respondent was driving scooter No.HP- 19-7773 allegedly in a rash and negligent manner and struck against one Shri Raj Kumar, a pedestrian, Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - who fell down and received the injuries and died in the hospital. PW1 Pritam Chand made the statement to the police under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Ext.PW1/A, which culminated into FIR Ext.PW6/B, under the aforesaid Sections. 3. Police took-up the investigation, visited the spot and prepared site plan Ext.PW6/E of the alleged place of accident. The scooter in question was also taken into possession vide memo Ext.PW3/B alongwith its documents. Respondent also sustained injuries in the said accident. His M.L.C. is Ext.PW9/A. The inquest papers of the deceased are Ext.PW6/C and postmortem report is Ext.PW7/A. After completing the investigation, Challan was presented in the Court for the trial of the respondent. At the end of trial, he was acquitted. 4. Heard and gone through the record. 5. To prove its case the prosecution examined PW1 Pritam Chand. According to him, he was about 50 yards away from the place of accident, but the said place is an inhabitated area and have shops nearby. He stated that many people were present at the time of accident. When he reached the spot, he saw that the injured was from his village, he informed his brother PW5 Puran Chand, who was at - 3 - Daulatpur Chowk, whereas Puran Chand claimed himself to be the eye witness and thus there is a material contradiction in the statements of both these witnesses. 6. PW1 admittedly was not an eye witness and PW5, who claimed himself to be an eye witness was at some other place, as stated by Pritam Chand. There is no other evidence on record to conclude that the respondent was driving the scooter in question in a rash or negligent manner which caused the accident in question resulting into the death of Shri Raj Kumar. 7. Learned trial Court took note of the above facts and rightly came to the conclusion that the offences charged against the respondent stand not proved against the respondent in accordance with law. Therefore, no interference in the acquittal of the respondent is called for. The appeal is without any merit and is dismissed. 8. The respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him at any stage during the proceedings of this case. 9. Send down the record forthwith. July 20, 2011. (Surinder Singh), (rc) Judge.