IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA: Cr.A.No.257 of 2001. Date of Decision :22nd April, 2008. State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus: Surinder Kumar. …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for judgment?1 For the appellant: Mr.Vivek Thakur, Addl. Advocate General with Ms.Subh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. . For Respondent. Mr.R.K.Gautam, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Naveen Bhardwaj, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J(Oral). The present appeal arises out of the judgment dated 30th November, 2000 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamsala in Criminal Case No. 32-II/1997 titled as State of H.P. Vs. Surinder 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 11th June, 1996 accused Surinder Kumar was driving scooter No. JKS-4018 from Dharamsala to Yol and when he reached at a place called ‘Rari, District Kangra, H.P., in front of the shop of Shri Dhruv Chand, he hit Sant Ram who was walking on the road. Both Sant Ram and the accused fell on the road and sustained injuries. On hearing sound of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 the accident, Sh. Dhruv Chand (PW-9) came out of his shop and saw Sant Ram lying on the road and blood was oozing from the injuries sustained by him. With the efforts of the people both the injured persons were sent to the Zonal Hospital Dharamsala for treatment. The statement of Smt Kainchnu Devi wife of Sh .Sant Ram (Ext.PW- 2/A) was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and F.I.R.No. 180/96 dated 11th June, 1996 (Ext.PW-11/A) under Sections 279 and 304-A I.P.C. was registered with Police Station, Dharamsala. Based on the same, the investigation was carried out. Sant Ram was referred to P.G.I. Chandigarh for further medical treatment where he ultimately succumbed to his injuries on 27th June, 1996. His M.L.C. (Ext.PW-8/A) was taken by the police. The Investigating Officer got the spot photographed and took the photographs Ext. PW-3/A-1 to Ext.PW- 3/D-1 on record. Site plan Ext.PW-12/A was also prepared. With completion of the investigation, the challan was presented in the Court for trial. The notice of accusation was put to the accused for an offence under Sections 279 and 304-A I.P.C. to which he did not plead guilty and claim trial. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was also recorded. Based on the material on record, the court below acquitted the accused of the charged offence for the reason that the sole spot witness could not prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 3 Smt.Kainchnu Devi (PW-2) has proved the fact that her statement (Ext.PW-2/A) was recorded by the Police. But, however, she did not witness the occurrence of the accident. Tara Chand (PW-3) proved the photographs which he had taken after the occurrence of the accident. From the sworn testimony of Head Constable Devender Kumar (PW-4), Sh.Amrit Lal (PW-5), Sh.Heera Singh (PW-6), Sh.Satpal (PW-10), Investigating Officer Onkar Singh (PW-11) and S.I. Dharam Chad (PW-12), it is clear that the investigation was carried out and the vehicle was also got mechanically examined. Dr. Ravi Aggarwal (PW-1), Dr. R.K.Mahajan (PW-7) and Dr.S.Samanju Dhiman (PW-8) also proved the fact that deceased Sant Ram first sustained injuries and finally succumbed to the same. However, this fact by itself would not be sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused with the commission of the crime. Therefore, the testimony of Dharuv Chand (PW-9) needs to be examined. PW-9 had deposed that he was working in his shop and came out only after he heard the sound of the scooter having fallen on the road. According to him when he came out of his shop, he noticed that people had collected at the spot of accident. He inquired to find out as to what had happened, he noticed that Sant Ram was lying unconscious on the road and blood was oozing from his head. He recognized him as he was working in the store maintained by the Irrigation and Public Health Department of the State. In cross- examination, he has categorically admitted that he did not see the scooter hit Sant Ram and also did not know due to whose negligence the accident took place. There is no other witness to the occurrence of the accident. From the testimony of PW-9, it cannot be said that the 4 accused has committed the charged offence. Even though it is proved that accident did take place but, however, it can not be said that the accident took place due to rash or negligent driving of the accused. The accused has the advantage of having been acquitted by the court below. There is no material on record to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. I see no reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the trial Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds are discharged. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. April 22, 2008(R)