IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. 196 of 2002. Date of decision:23.12.2008. ________________________________________________________ State of H.P. .. ..Appellant Versus Tilak Raj .. ..Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the Appellant: Mr.R.M. Bisht, Dy.A.G. For the respondent: Mr.Banbhushan Singh, vice counsel for the respondent. _____________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 3.8.2001 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. in Criminal Case No.14-II/97 whereby he has acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 3.4.1995 Tarsem Lal was driving his scooter and Pardeep Kumar was sitting as the pillion rider. According to the prosecution near Nagni Mata Culvert offending truck No.HIK-4615 came from the opposite side. It was being driven by the accused in a rash and negligent manner and hit the scooter causing injuries to Pardeep Kumar and Tarsem Lal. A complaint in this behalf was filed by one …2… Dr.Kishan Lal on 7.4.1995 four days after the incident had taken place. The police registered a case and also took into possession the truck in question. Thereafter, investigation was done and challan filed. The accused was summoned. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After trial he has been acquitted. Hence, the present appeal. At the outset, it may be noted that PW-1 Dr.Kishan Lal Uncle of injured Pradeep is not a witness to the incident. He only lodged the complaint that too four days after the accident took place. According to him, he came to know on the night of the incident itself that an accident had taken place. He however states that since the condition of Pardeep was serious he did not lodge the FIR but on the next day when they shifted Pardeep Kumar to Bhinder Hospital from Saini Hospital he came to lodge the FIR. According to him, he had come to the Police Station on the day after the accident but the SHO did not register the case and thereafter he met the Deputy superintendent of Police, Nurpur and filed the application Ext.PW-1/A. As far as the accident is concerned the statement of this witness is totally hear- say. PW-6 Dr.B.M. Saini of Saini Nursing Home has stated that Pardeep Kumar was admitted in his Hospital on 3.4.1995 and was discharged on request on 6.4.1995. The complaint was lodged on 7.4.1995. there is un- explained delay in lodging the FIR. …3… Admittedly, Tarsem Lal PW-4 was driving the scooter at the relevant time. PW-3 Pardeep Kumar was the pillion rider. According to them the accident took place at about 6.30 p.m. when it was turning dark. They both state that the head lights of the truck were on and the truck was coming from opposite side at a high speed. If that be so, it would have been impossible for them to read the number of the truck. The explanation given for not lodging the FIR is that Pardeep Kumar was under treatment. However, there is no evidence on record that Tarsem Lal was admitted in the Hospital or was under treatment. Though it is alleged that he suffered some injury on his shoulder and his collar bone got fractured, no evidence has been led to prove this fact. If the accident had happened in the manner in which it has been suggested in the Court, there was no reason why the FIR could not have been lodged by Tarsem Lal immediately especially if he and his friend had suffered serious injuries in the accident. The police took the offending truck in possession but no mechanical examination of the truck was got done. If an accident had taken place there would have been some scratches or dent etc. on the bumper of the truck. This has also not been proved. The scooter which would have suffered extensive damage in the accident was never taken into possession or got …4… examined. There is no material on record to show that any damage was caused to the scooter. Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused. There is no merit in the appeal which is accordingly rejected. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged. December 23, 2008. ( Deepak Gupta ), PV Judge