HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.A.No.: 335 of 2003. Decided on: 15.5.2010 State of H.P. ………Appellant. Versus Prakash Chand ……Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellant: Mr.J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr.Ramakant Sharma and Mr.D.K. Khanna, Advocates. V.K. Ahuja, J (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan, dated 25.9.2002, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the charge framed against him under Sections 431 and 283 of the IPC. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 22.1.1999, a written complaint was sent by the Additional Assistant Engineer, National Highway, to the SHO, Police Station Solan, in which he had alleged that during spot inspection, he found that Tipper bearing No.HPA-6226 was throwing debris towards culvert No.104/2 on ______________________________ Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - NH-22 bye pass, which had caused damage to the culvert. An FIR was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed before the learned trial Court, who tried the respondent leading to his acquittal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 4. On appraisal of the judgment passed by the learned trial Court, it is clear that PW-1 Ramesh Kumar, Mate in the PWD, who was the witness of seizure memo of the vehicle in question, has only stated that the Tipper was parked on the spot, but he had not seen any truck throwing debris. The only other relevant witness was PW-2 Kuldip Dass, Additional Assistant Engineer, who admitted that there is a shop and dhaba as well as a mechanic shop near the place of occurrence. He pleaded his ignorance about the driver of the Tipper at the time when it was throwing debris over the convert. 5. Thus, the solitary statement of PW-2 Kuldip Dass was not relied upon when the nearby shopkeeper, dhaba owner and the mechanic were not associated to prove the facts. The statement of PW-2 Kuldip Dass itself is to this effect that he was not knowing as to who was the driver of the Tipper at the time when the debris was thrown. 6. Keeping in view the evidence led by the prosecution, the conclusion drawn by the learned trial - 3 - Court cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court and as such there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondent shall stand discharged. May 15, 2010 (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge.