1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No. 373 of 2002. Date of decision: 19.3.2009 State of H.P. …….Appellant Vs. Labh Singh ….. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Appellant : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondent : Ms. Sunita Sharma, Advocate Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This appeal has been directed against the judgment of acquittal recorded by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una on 19.2.2002 in Case No.51-I-97 under Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC and Section 184 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that PW-12 Subash Chand complainant on 17.12.1996 at about 4.45 p.m. was returning from industrial area, Mehatpur to the shop on scooter bearing registration No.HP-20-7257 which was being driven by PW-2 Sohan Singh, near flour mill scooter was hit by tanker bearing registration No.PB-11-E-9887. The tanker was being driven by the respondent. In the accident PW-2 Sohan Singh had sustained injuries on his head. He was taken to District Hospital, Una. The accident took place due to Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2 rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent. PW-12 Subash Chand made a statement Ex.PA to PW-9 Prem Chand at about 9.30 p.m. and on this FIR Ex.PB came to be registered at Police Station, Una. PW-10 Dr.A.K. Sharma and PW-11 Dr. Abraham Kurien found that PW-2 Sohan Singh had suffered simple and grievous injuries and issued MLCs Ex.PW-10/A and Ex.PW-11/A. The scooter was taken into possession along with documents, mechanical reports of scooter and tanker Ex.PW-3/A and Ex.PW-3/B were obtained. On completion of investigation, challan was presented. The notice of accusation was put to the respondent, for offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC and Section 184 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution has examined 12 witnesses and produced some documents. The statement of respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the prosecution case. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 19.2.2002 acquitted the respondent, hence this appeal. 3. I have heard Mr. Anshul Bansal, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State and Ms. Sunita Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent and have also gone through the record. On behalf of the appellant, It has been submitted that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has misconstrued and misinterpreted the evidence on record and has erred in acquitting the respondent, the prosecution has proved the case against the respondents by leading oral and documentary evidence. The learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment. 3 4. Ex.PA is the statement of PW-12 Subash Chand and on that basis FIR Ex.PB was registered. In Ex.PA, it has been stated that when Subash Chand and Sohan Lal reached near the flour mill, a tanker from factory area side came in high speed and struck against the scooter, as a result of which, Sohan Lal sustained head injuries, who was taken to market for treatment in the tanker itself. Ex.PW-9/B is the spot map. Ex.PW-10/A is the MLC of Sohan Singh, Ex.PW-11/A is another medical certificate of injured issued by Dr. Abrahan Kurien, Ex.PW-3/A is the mechanical report of the scooter No.HP-20-7257 and Ex.PW-3/B is the mechanical report of tanker No.PB-11-E-9887. 5. PW-9 ASI Prem Chand has stated that it has come in investigation that tanker was on the main road. He has also stated that scooter came from link road shown as mark-B in site plan Ex.PW-9/B. He has also stated that scooter driver entered on the main road from wrong side. PW-12 Subash Chand has stated that on seeing the tanker the scooter driver applied the brake but even then tanker struck against the scooter. He has also stated that tanker was on the main road and scooter was to come on the main road from link road. He had not gone to the police rather police came to him. The road of the industrial area is in bad condition and for that reason the vehicle moved slowly on that road. PW-2 Sohan Singh was driving the scooter at the relevant time. He has stated that he had seen the tanker which was going from the side of factory area on the main road towards Mehatpur in high speed. He stopped the scooter, but tanker on the wrong side struck against the scooter, as a result of which, he sustained head injuries and become unconscious. He has stated that 4 he had disclosed to the police that he stopped the scooter on seeing the tanker but he was confronted with his statement made before the police where it was not so recorded. 6. In Ex.PA, PW-12 has stated that a tanker in high speed came from factory area side and struck against the scooter. It emerges from the evidence that the tanker was on the main road and the scooter was on the link road and the scooter was to come on the main road. It is not the case of PW-2 Sohan Singh that the tanker was not visible to him when he was driving the scooter. It was the duty of PW-2 Sohan Singh to be more careful while driving the scooter when he was on link road and was to come on the main road. It appears that he did not take due care while driving the scooter. PW-2 has made an improvement in the prosecution case when he has stated in the Court that he stopped the scooter on seeing the tanker but despite that tanker struck against the scooter. PW-2 reported the matter to the police vide statement Ex.PA but at that time he had not stated that he stopped the scooter on seeing the tanker. 7. There is no denial of the fact that vide MLC Ex.PW-10/A and MLC Ex.PW-11/A, some injuries were found on the person of PW- 2, but the question is whether such injuries were caused to PW-2 due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent. The mechanical reports Ex.PW-3/A and Ex.PW-3/B of the vehicles are not of any help in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken a possible view from the evidence on record in returning the findings that driver of the scooter itself appears to be faulty and no fault can be found with the driving of the respondent so 5 as to hold that he was hasty and rash in a manner that he did not bother for the consequences of such driving. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has appreciated the material on record properly. The view taken by him cannot be said to be perverse or not at all possible. This Court will not convert the acquittal into conviction simply on the ground that other view is also possible on the evidence on record. No case for interference is made out resultantly, appeal is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds discharged. ( Kuldip Singh) Judge March, 20,2009 (sks)