IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 538 of 2001 Date of decision: 23.07.2008 State of H.P. ... Appellant Versus Veer Singh … Respondent Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. R.P. Singh, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja , J. (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. against the judgment of the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Arki, Camp at Nalagarh, dated 9.1.2001, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the accusations put up to him under Sections 279, 337 and 338 I.P.C. and under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a statement was made to the police by complainant PW-1 Bhagat Ram under Section 154 Cr.P.C. that today at about 12.30PM, on 8.11.1998, the complainant was standing near the liquor vend at Nalagarh and was trying to cross the road and a jeep came from the other side being driven by the respondent rashly or negligently. It was alleged that the jeep 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 struck against him, he fell down and suffered injuries. The respondent brought him to the hospital and got him admitted there. On receipt of the information from the hospital, a police officer had gone to the hospital and recorded the statement of the complainant/injured, on the basis of which a case was registered leading to the investigation of a case and filing of challan as against the respondent, who was tried by the learned trial Court leading to his acquittal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. A perusal of the record of the case shows that the prosecution has examined seven witnesses and out of them, statements of three witnesses including that of complainant PW-1 Bhagat Ram can be said to be material to determine the question if the respondent was rash or negligent in driving the vehicle at the relevant time. The fact that PW-1 Bhagat Ram suffered injuries in the accident which have been proved to be simple as well as grievous has not been disputed in the evidence. PW-1 Bhagat Ram has stated that at the relevant time he was standing near the liquor vend when the jeep being driven by the respondent came there and struck with him. In his statement in the Court he has stated that he was standing at the liquor vend but he was confronted with his statement Ext. P-1 in which he has specifically alleged that at the time of the accident he was crossing the road. Thus, he has made improvement in his statement. Moreover, a perusal of the statement of the complainant suggests that at the spot there is a Khokha, one wine shop and some Rehris were also standing there at the 3 relevant time. He has also stated that many other persons were crossing the road at the time, though he has not named any of the person who had witnessed the occurrence at the relevant time. He has not named those persons since he suffered injuries and was shifted to the hospital. However, his statement proves the fact that several persons may have been present at the place of occurrence which was a busy place and may have witnessed the accident but out of those persons, the prosecution had examined only two witnesses, namely, PW-2 Deva Nand and PW-7 Rajesh Kumar. Their statements do not corroborate the testimony of the complainant. PW-2 Deva Nand has stated that he was standing at the Chowk but in his cross-examination, he admitted that the place of accident was not visible from the place where he was standing. He further stated that he had not seen the accident and came to the spot after the accident. Therefore, his statement is of no help to the prosecution. Statement of PW-7, another eye witness, is also of no help to the prosecution since he turned hostile and did not support the prosecution story. It follows from the above discussion that apart from the complainant’s statement, statements of two other persons were recorded but none has supported the prosecution and the statement of the complainant has not been corroborated by any other witness who was present at the spot at the relevant time which cannot be said to be sufficient to hold that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the respondent beyond any reasonable doubt. It was rightly observed that complainant can be said to be an interested witness since he has also filed a claim petition against the respondent for the injuries suffered 4 by him. It is a case where apart from the complainant, several witnesses were present but none has supported him and, therefore, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court holding that the prosecution has failed to prove their case beyond any reasonable doubt cannot be termed as perverse calling for an interference by this Court. In view of the above discussion, it follows that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the State of H.P., which is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondent stands discharged forthwith. ( V.K. Ahuja ) July 23, 2008 Judge (BSS) 5