Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. M.P( M) No.806 of 2010 Dated of Decision : September, 21, 2010 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- State of Himachal Pradesh. ……… Petitioner. Versus Bhupinder Singh @ Bittu …….. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Additional Advocate General, for the appellant. For the Respondent : Mr. Pawan Gautam, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J. (oral): Respondent was tried and acquitted by the learned trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code in Criminal Case No. 159/2 of 2004, decided on 17.03.2010. His acquittal has been challenged by the State in this appeal. 2. In short the prosecution story can be stated thus. The respondent was a Driver of Tempo Trax No. HP-01A -3327, on 26.04.2004 at about 9.30 p.m., he was driving the vehicle allegedly in rash and negligent - 2 - manner, so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others. Because of his said act his Trax vehicle met with an accident on Solan - Jaunaji Road, resulting injuries to S/Shri Vikram Singh Babu Ram and Balwant Singh, who were the passengers therein. 3. During the trial, the stand taken by the respondent was that the vehicle was coming on high beam from the opposite side, it struck against his trax on a curve. He applied the brakes but it went off the road. He denied the rash and negligent act of driving. PW1 Vikram Singh, PW5 Om Prakash, PW 9 Ramesh Kumar, PW 10 Subhash Chand did not support the case of the prosecution rather they substantiated the stand taken by the respondent. They categorically stated that no fault is attributable to the respondent in the alleged accident and further testified that at the place of accident, there was slight curve, a truck came from the opposite side in a high speed and on high beam and the respondent tried to avoid the accident, took his vehicle towards extreme left side of the road, and applied the breaks, but side of the road gave way to the vehicle, which fell down. In these circumstances the rash and negligent act of driving of - 3 - the respondent is not proved. Therefore, the findings of acquittal are borne out from the record. No merit in appeal, accordingly the appeal is dismissed. (Surinder Singh) Judge September 21, 2010. Pritam