IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 404 of 2003. Date of Decision: 13.8.2010. _______________________________________________ State of H.P. ….Appellant. Versus. Naresh Kumar. ….Respondent. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant : Mr.Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For Respondent. : Mr.Ajay Sharma, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). The State is aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dehra acquitting the respondent under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The prosecution case in brief is that on 3.5.1997 at about 1.45 p.m. the Medical Officer, Dehra informed that one person has been admitted to the hospital having been injured in an accident. Accordingly, Head Constable Uttam Chand (PW9) and HHG Harbans Lal rushed to the hospital and Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?yes . 2 recorded the statement of complainant Surjit Singh (PW1) on the basis of which First Information Report was registered. According to the complainant, on 3.5.1997 when he was returning to his home along with his wife and children after attending the marriage of his sister-in-law at Merri and was waiting for the bus near Kaloha Pull, he was sitting on the parapet of the bridge when at around 11.30 a.m. the truck being driven by respondent rashly and negligently came from Pragpur side, struck against him as a result of which he fell down from the parapet and sustained simple as well as grievous injuries. On the basis of the prosecution evidence, the learned Court concludes that no offence has been made out. In order to arrive at this conclusion, the learned Court relies on the evidence of complainant Surjit Singh (PW1), who stated that the truck came from Jawar side and was going towards Garli Pragpur, it was being driven in a rash and negligent speed and it struck with him as a result of which he fell down in the Nullah and sustained injuries. Thereafter he was taken for medical treatment to Nangal hospital and then referred to Dehra civil hospital where his statement under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Ext.PW1/A) was recorded. He was treated and X-rays Ext.PW1/D to Ext.PW1/G were taken and M.L.C. Ext.PW1/C was conducted. He admits that at the place of occurrence, there is a blind curve. In his cross-examination he has specifically admitted that the truck was on its right side i.e. the extreme left. 3 PW2 Smt. Trishla Devi wife of the complainant says that the accident took place at around 11.30 a.m. when her husband was struck by the truck. She was declared hostile by the prosecution which is quite strange considering that she is the wife of the complainant. She also admits that there is a blind curve at the spot where the accident has taken place and there are 3-4 shops near the place of occurrence. PW3 Hans Raj was the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat, Kaloha, who says that the accident took place at around 11.30 a.m. He admits in his cross-examination that the truck struck against the injured in his presence. He also admits that there is difference of two feet between the truck and parapet at the spot and there were no skid marks on the road. Considering the entirety of the evidence, the court concludes that the case of the prosecution is that the complainant had fallen down 20-25 feet deep into the Nullah. The court notes that there are no marks of the truck hitting the parapet as was the case made out by the prosecution. The court also takes into consideration the fact that there are differences of two feet between the truck and the paraphet where the truck was stopped by the respondent. The photographs Ext.P-1 to Ext.P-3 also show that there is considerable distance between the paraphet and the truck. In these circumstances, the court holds that no offence has been made out. 4 I have heard learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State. Learned Assistant Advocate General urges that the evidence in this case has not been properly appreciated and that the complainant sustained injuries because of rash and negligent driving on the part of the respondent. I have gone through the entire prosecution evidence. I do not find that the case of the prosecution has been established. The wife of the complainant has turned hostile and PW3 Hans Raj who is supposed to have witnessed the occurrence states that no accident took place in his presence. In these circumstances, I do not find that any case is made out against the respondent. There is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the respondent shall stand discharged. (Dev Darshan Sud) Judge. August 13, 2010(R)