IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No.476 of 2001 Date of decision : June 20, 2008 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Ashok Kumar …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. Sanjay Dutt Vasudeva, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge( Oral ) Heard and gone through the record. 2. This appeal by the State is directed against trial Magistrate’s judgment, whereby respondent Ashok Kumar, who was tried for offences, punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, has been acquitted. 3. Allegations on which the respondent was tried may be summed up thus. On 10th May, 2000, around 7 p.m., when PW-2 Prabhat Chand was returning home after reaping wheat crop, a scooter came from behind and rammed into him, due to which he fell and sustained some injuries. The scooter was being driven at a very fast speed by respondent Ashok Kumar. 4. Prosecution examined injured Prabhat Chand as PW-2, his wife Jatto Devi (PW-3) and his wife’s sister Vidya Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… Devi (PW-4). PW-2 Prabhat Chand in his own deposition stated that he did not see the respondent when the accident took place but he saw him 3-4 hours later at the hospital. His wife PW-3 Jatto Devi stated that the name of the driver of the scooter was Madan Lal. Both the complainant and his wife stated that they did not notice the number of the scooter nor did they see the man, who was driving the scooter when the accident took place. Third witness PW-4 Vidya Devi, sister of PW-3 Jatto Devi, is not named as an eye-witness in the FIR. 5. In view of the abovestated position, I do not find any justification for interfering with the judgment of the trial Magistrate. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Appeal stands disposed of. June 20, 2008(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J