IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.210 of 2005 Date of Decision: December 2, 2011 State of H.P. ..Appellant Versus Kulvinder Singh .. Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant A.G. For the Respondent: Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate. __________________________________________ Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) State has appealed against the judgment, dated 4.3.2004, of learned Sessions Judge, whereby reversing the judgment, dated 11.10.2004, of learned Judicial Magistrate, Paonta Sahib, conviction of respondent Kulvinder Singh for offences, under Sections 279, 337 and 388 IPC, has been set aside and the said respondent has been acquitted of the charge. 2. Respondent was prosecuted by the State in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Paonta Sahib, for allegedly driving his car, bearing registration No. DL-8C-1123, in a rash or negligent manner, on 10.12.2000, on National Whet her report ers of t he l ocal pa pers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? É2É Highway, leading from Nahan side towards Dehradun, at a place called Kollar and while so driving, causing hurt and grievous hurt to PW-1 Gulab Singh. 3. Prosecution examined PW-1 Gulab Singh and four other witnesses, namely Paramjit Singh PW-2, Suresh PW-6, Sher Mohammad PW-3 and Raj Rani PW-8, to prove the occurrence. 4. Learned trial Court held that the cause of accident was rash or negligent driving of car by the respondent and consequently convicted him for offences, under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC, and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for varying terms and also to pay fine. Appeal was carried by the respondent to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, who has acquitted him. 5. In the report that was lodged with the police through statement Ext. PW3/A (under Section 151 Cr. P.C.), it was stated that the accident took place, when the respondent, all of a sudden, turned the car to his right hand side, that is to say, on the wrong side and hit PW-1 Gulab Singh. However, when in the witness box, PW-1 Gulab Singh very categorically stated, in the cross-examination, that the car was being driven on the left hand side of the driver, meaning thereby that the report that was lodged with the police, vide statement Ext. PW3/A, does not corroborate the version given by PW-1 Gulab Singh in the Court. É3É 6. Prosecution also examined PW-8 Raj Rani. The witness very categorically stated that the accident took place because PW-1 Gulab Singh, who was standing on one side of the road, tried to cross the road all of a sudden and in that process he got perplexed and the accident took place. No doubt the witness is the wife of the respondent, but the fact remains that the prosecution does not dispute her testimony, as she was not declared hostile. In view of the above stated position, no ground for interfering with the judgment of acquittal, rendered by the Sessions Court, can be said to exist. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. December 2, 2011 (ss) (Surjit Singh), J.