HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.A.No. 366 of 2001 Decided on: 29.4.2008. State of Himachal Pradesh ………Appellant. Versus Amar Nath ……Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the appellant: Mr.J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. For the respondent: Mr.Ashutosh Burathoki, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the State against the judgment of the court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.2, Palampur, District Kangra, H.P., dated 30.1.2001, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the accusations framed against him under Sections 279/337 IPC. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that an information was received at the police station that an accident case had been admitted in the hospital on which PW-9 SI Kushal Kumar went to the spot and since the injured was in an unconscious stage and unable to make statement, he proceeded to the spot and submitted a report to the police on which a case was registered resulting in the ___________ Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - filing of the challan as against the respondent who was tried by the learned trial Court leading to his acquittal. I have heard the learned Law Officer for the State and the learned counsel for the respondent and have gone through the record of the case. The material witnesses in the present case can be said to be PW-5 Rakesh Chand, Scooterist, as well as the Investigating Officer, PW-9 SI Kushal Kumar. PW-5 Rakesh Chand has stated that he was going on his scooter on 25.4.1997 and a car came at a fast speed from the other side and struck against his scooter. He fell down, became unconscious, was taken to civil hospital and stated that the car was being driven by the accused and the accident had taken place due to the act of the car driver. A perusal of the statement of this PW-5 shows that he has nowhere stated as to what was the speed of the car or that the car was being driven rashly by the car driver/accused. The Investigating Officer PW-9 SI Kushal Kumar has stated that he went to the spot and conducted the investigation by preparing the site plan and took the documents in possession alongwith the vehicle. His statement shows that the accident had taken place at point ‘A’ and according to the site plan prepared by him, this was on the left side of the car and a perusal of the site plan Ext.PW- 9/C also shows that the scooterist was coming from the opposite side and the point ‘A’ has been shown on the right side of the road which clearly suggests that the possibility that the scooterist had struck with the car which was going on its own side cannot be ruled out. The Investigating Officer had also drawn the conclusion from his own observation that the scooterist who was only having a learner’s driving licence may not be driving correctly and he may have struck - 3 - with the car coming from the opposite direction. A suggestion was put to him and he admitted that the car driver had told him that he stopped the car on seeing the scooter. A perusal of his statement as well as that of inured shows that the evidence led by the prosecution was not such on which a conclusion could be drawn that the respondent was driving the car rashly or negligently. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent had also shown the provision of Rule 3 of Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 which shows that in case the person is having learner’s licence while driving a scooter, he is required to be accompanied by an instructor holding an effective driving licence to drive the vehicle. The facts of the present case show that the injured was not accompanied by any instructor having an effective licence. The evidence led by the prosecution was not such from which it could be concluded that the findings of the learned trial Court are perverse calling for an interference by this Court. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that 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. April 29, 2008 (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge.