IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA: Cr.A.No.280 of 2001. Date of Decision : 28th February, 2008. State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus: Raj Kumar. …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for judgment?1 For the appellant: Mr.Vivek Thakur, Additional Advocate General. . For Respondent. Mr.N.K.Thakur, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J(Oral). The present appeal arises out of the judgment dated 21st August, 1999 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. in Criminal Case No. 121-II/1998 titled as State Vs. Raj Kumar acquitting the accused of the charged offence under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. As per the case of the prosecution on 10th June, 1997 Smt. Gudo (PW-1), Smt. Kaya and Smt. Kamlo (PW-6) along with Rajinder Kumar, a boy of nine years and other children were on their way from Khajjiar to their village at Kakela. They were walking on the main road. At about 5 P.M. when they reached at a place known as Kaljari Nulla, one N.C.Jeep No. HP. 48-0681 driven by 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 the accused came at a high speed from Khajjiar side and hit Rajinder Kumar who sustained an injury on his head. The accused immediately took the injured in his jeep to the District Hospital, Chamba but Rajinder Kumar succumbed to his injury and died. Smt. Guddo (PW-1) reported the matter to the Police and her statement (Ext.PW-1/A) under Section 154 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Based on the same, F.I.R. No. 213/97 (Ext.PW-4/A) dated 10th June, 1997 was registered with Police Station Sadar, Chamba under Sections 279, 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. The Police swung into action immediately, the vehicle was impounded and the driving license of the accused was taken into possession. The inquest report was prepared and the post mortem was conducted by Dr. D.P.Dogra in terms of his report Ext.PW-7/A . With the completion of the investigation, the challan was presented in the court for trial and the charges against the accused under Sections 279 and 304 A of the Indian Penal Code were framed. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined eight witnesses. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was also recorded. However, no evidence was led by him. Considering the entire material on record, the court below came to the conclusion that the statements of the spot witnesses were contradictory and did not prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused in the commission of the crime. I have considered the material on record and heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3 Dr. D.P.Dogra (PW-7) has carried out the post mortem and submitted his report.Sh. Pardeep Kumar (PW-3) is the Pharmacist. It has been proved by them that Rajinder Kumar has died. Sh. Guria (PW-2) has witnessed the recovery of vehicle No. HP. 48-0681 vide recovery memo Ext.PW-2/A and has also witnessed the receipt of the dead body Ext.PW-2/B. He also signed the inquest report (Ext.PW-2/C) which was prepared by the police. Sh. Partap Chand (PW-4), Puran Chand (PW-5) and Surinder Singh (PW-8) are the police officials and have also carried out the investigation in the case. This leaves us with the statement of the remaining witnesses who were, in fact, the spot witnesses. Smt. Guddo (PW- 1) and Smt. Kamlo (PW-6) have deposed with regard to the actual occurrence of the incident. These witnesses have not only contradicted themselves but also the record of the case. Smt. Kamlo (PW-6) has categorically admitted that Rajinder Kumar deceased was hard of hearing and was walking on the road along with them. According to her when the vehicle in question being driven by the accused came from the opposite direction i.e. Chamba side, the deceased got perplexed and started running across the road from one end to another, due to which the deceased got hit by the vehicle in question. She has categorically stated that she does not know with whose fault the accident had taken place. According to her the children were jumping on the road in a playful manner. 4 Smt. Guddo (PW-1) has contradicted herself. As per her version recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. she was walking along with 20-22 children on the road at the time of the occurrence of the accident and was coming back from Khajjiar and walking towards their village at Kakela. However, in her statement recorded in the Court she has given a different version and has stated that they were walking towards Khajjiar and not towards their village. Further there is a contradiction in the statements of PW-1 and PW- 6. Smt. Kamlo (PW-6) has stated that the vehicle was coming from the front i.e. Chamba side but as per the version of PW-1, the vehicle was coming from behind i.e. Khajjiar side. PW-1 has admitted the fact that the road at the place of occurrence is narrow and three of her children had actually jumped from the vehicle. She could not state with certainty as to where the children were walking. She has admitted the fact that there were many children walking along with her on the road. Simply because the deceased died due to an accident with the vehicle being driven by the accused that by itself would not prove the guilt of the accused in the commission of the crime. Smt. Kamlo (PW-6) has categorically stated that the deceased got perplexed and ran across the road which resulted into the accident. A perusal of the site plan (Ext.PW-5/A) would show that the road at the place of occurrence is narrow and in fact there is a blind curve just before the spot of occurrence of the accident. The fact that the deceased was hard of hearing even though denied by PW-1 has been proved by PW-6. 5 In my view the statements of the witnesses cannot be relied upon to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. There is inconsistency and contradictions in the statements of the witnesses which makes the prosecution case to be highly doubtful. In my view, the court below has correctly appreciated the material on record while arriving at its conclusion. I see no reason to interfere with the same. There is no perversity in the same. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds are discharged. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. February 28, 2008(R)