Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.27 of 2003. Dated of Decision: July 17, 2009. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- State of H.P. …… Appellant. Versus Vipan Kumar. ……. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the Appellant : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate. Surinder Singh,J (oral) : The state has challenged the acquittal of the respondent, in this appeal. Precisely the case of the prosecution is that on 23.12.1999, at about 7.40 p.m. at Sanjauli near ‘Durga Gas Agency’, the complainant was coming from the side of Dhalli driving his car. It is alleged that the bus No.HP07-4505, while taking pass, it rashly and negligently hit car No.HPA-51 of the complainant from the side of rear door and damaged his vehicle. The complainant was traveling in the said car along with his family members. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record. - 2 - To substantiate the case of the prosecution, none of the family member of the complainant was examined. There is only the sole testimony of the complainant PW3 Vipan Kumar. According to him, he was driving his car on the left side of the road and the bus in question of which the respondent was a driver, overtook his car from the right side and in that process, hit his car, as a result of which the car got pushed towards parapet causing damage to it. The passengers of the car did not sustain any injury. He took the photographs of both the vehicles himself and reported the matter to the police. The negatives of the photographs were not produced and proved, thus the photographs looses its importance. The police arrived at the spot and prepared the site plan, but did not examine any passenger of the bus. There is only the self serving statement of the complainant. No reason has been assigned as to why at least the wife of the complainant was not examined to substantiate his version. The learned trial court also took the note of the fact that there were many other passengers traveling in the bus, at the time of the alleged accident, but none was associated during the investigation of the case nor examined in the court. Further the complainant deposed that a vehicle came from the opposite side with a dazzling light when bus was taking pass. He did not say what was the act of rash or negligent act of the respondent which was responsible for the accident. Thus, explicit reliance can not be placed on his statement. There is also not even an iota of evidence on record to substantiate the offence under Section 427 of the Indian penal Code. - 3 - On the critical examination of the evidence aforesaid and also the fact that there is nothing on record to support the prosecution version worth inspiring confidence, with respect to rash and negligent driving of the respondent, thus, the offences charged could not be proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial court require no interference, as such the appeal is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. The respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him at any stage during the proceedings of the case. Send down the records. July 17, 2009. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.