IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No. 305 of 2001 Date of Decision : 29.2.2008 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus: Rakesh Kumar …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. O.P. Sharma, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J (Oral). The present appeal arises out of the judgment dated 15.12.2000 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, H.P. in Cr. Case No. 47-1-1998, acquitting the accused of the charged offence. As per the case of the prosecution, on 9.7.1997 deceased Karam Chand borrowed cycle from Shopkeeper Tarsem Lal (PW-1) so that he could visit the market to have his hair cut from the barber. As soon as Karam Chand left the shop of Tarsem Lal towards Bhikha market, Dhangoli, Tehsil Una, H.P. one Jeep bearing No.HP-20- 6369 driven by the accused in a rash and negligent manner came at a 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? high speed and hit Karam Chand, who got entangled with the bumper of the Jeep. Since the vehicle was in high speed, Karam Chand was dragged for about 40 feet and the Jeep stopped only after hitting an electric pole. The occupant of the Jeep Smt. Kulbinder Kaur and Sh.Karam Chand sustained injuries and were taken to the hospital, but unfortunately, Karam Chand succumbed to his injuries on the way. Resultantly, the matter was reported with the police and an F.I.R. (Ext.PW-10/C) bearing No.353/97 dated 9.7.1997 was registered with Police Station, Una under Sections 279, 337 and 304A I.P.C. The police agency was immediately put into motion and the vehicle in question was impounded. The post-mortem was conducted on the dead body and the post-mortem report is Ext.PW6/A. The vehicle was got mechanically examined in terms of report Ext.PW4/A and Ext.PW-4/B. The statement of the witnesses were recorded. With the completion of the investigation, the challan was presented in the court for trial. Notice of accusation was put to the accused for an offence under Sections 279, 337 and 304A I.P.C. The accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses and the statement of the accused u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. was also recorded. No evidence in defence was led by the accused. Considering the material on record, the court acquitted the accused of the charged offences for the reason that the spot witnesses, whose testimony was material were declared hostile and there was nothing in their statements which would show the complicity of the accused with the commission of the crime. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Dr. Kiran Kanwar (PW-6) and Dr.R.C.Dhadwal (PW-7) examined the deceased and carried out the post-mortem and issued the MLC Ext.PW-6/A and Ext.PW-7/A, respectively. From their testimonies, it is clear that Sh.Karam Chand expired due to vehicular accident. Sh. Saroop Lal (PW-4) mechanically inspected the vehicle in question in terms of Ext.PW-4/A and Ext.PW-4/B has opined that no defects were found in the vehicle. Shri Kuldip Singh (PW-5) is the Photographer, who took the photographs, which, however, were not proved. ASI Mohinder Pal (PW- 10) is the police official who carried out the investigation of the case. From his statement, it is clear that the vehicle in question was impounded and investigation had been carried out by him. However, these facts alone would not be sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused for the charged offences. In order to prove the culpability of the accused, the statements of the remaining witnesses Tarsem Singh (PW-1), Ajit Singh (PW-2), Mahinder Singh (PW-3), Kuldeep Chand (PW-8), Banku Ram (PW-9) need to be examined. These witnesses are stated to be the spot witnesses, who have witnessed the occurrence of the accident in question. In fact PW-1 is alleged to have filed the complaint Ext.PW-1/A, on the basis of which an F.I.R. was registered. Perusal of his statement would show that even though signatures have been admitted but, however, the contents have been denied. Perusal of the statements of the aforesaid witnesses would show that they were declared hostile and were confronted with their statements Ext.PW-10/Q, Ext.PW-10/L, Ext.PW-10/N and Ext.PW-10/P. These witnesses have been cross- examined at length by the Public Prosecutor. The scrutiny of the testimonies would show that there is nothing which would even remotely connect the accused with the commission of the alleged offences. In the absence of any evidence on record, to prove the complicity of the accused in the commission of the offence, it cannot be said that the prosecution has able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court below has considered the material in its entirety. I see no perversity in the same. The prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds are discharged. February 29,2008(GR). (Sanjay Karol), J.