IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. 683 of 2000. Judgement reserved on: 17.3.2008 Date of decision: 18.3.2008. State of H.P. ….. Appellant. Vs. Ram Dev …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. A.K.Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. For the Respondent : None. Kuldip Singh, Judge. The State has filed this appeal against the judgement dated 22.4.2000 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bilaspur, in case No. 210/2 of 1998 acquitting the respondent, under Sections 279, 337, 201 IPC. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 19.11.1998 at about 7.30 a.m. PW 1 Nikka Ram complainant had parked his truck near outer gate of A.C.C. factory, Barmana. PW 2 Sunil Kumar, Conductor was shutting the `Dala’ of the truck. In the meantime, truck bearing registration No. HP-24-5187 which was being driven by the respondent rashly and negligently came from back side in high speed Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… and crushed the right heel of the foot of complainant with the tyre. He sustained injuries on the foot also and fell down. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent. Sunil Kumar, Conductor signaled the respondent to stop the truck, but he ran away from the spot. The complainant was shifted to A.C.C. hospital, Barmana for treatment. The matter was reported to police and an FIR Ex. PW 1/A was registered. During the course of investigation, spot map Ex. PW 5/A was prepared. The truck was taken into possession alongwith its documents vide memo Ex. PW 5/B. The complainant was medically examined, vide MLC Ex. PW 3/A. The X-Ray examination of the complainant was also conducted and final report Ex. PW 3/C was obtained. The truck was mechanically examined vide report Ex. PB. On completion of investigation, challan was presented against the respondent, under Section 279, 337 and 201 IPC and accordingly notice of accusation was put to respondent, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution has examined six witnesses. The respondent did not lead any evidence in defence. The learned trial Magistrate has acquitted the respondent, hence the appeal by the State. 3. I have heard Mr. A.K. Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General and gone through the record. However, none has appeared on behalf of the respondent. Mr. Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that learned Magistrate has erred in acquitting the respondent. The prosecution has proved rash and negligent driving on the part of the respondent at the time of …3… accident. There is no reason to disbelieve the statements of PW 1 and PW 2, the eye witnesses. 4. PW 1 Nikka Ram has stated that on 19.11.1998, he was driver and PW 2 Sunil Kumar was conductor on truck bearing registration No. HP 28-2774. At about 7.30 a.m. the truck was loaded with cement and he was ready to go to Hoshiarpur. He was shutting the `Dala’ of his truck. In the meantime, truck bearing registration No. HP 24-5187 which was being driven by the respondent came in high speed. The front tyre of this truck crushed his foot. His left leg also struck against the rear tyre of the truck and he fell down. The respondent ran away from the spot. He was taken for first aid at A.C.C. hospital. Thereafter, he lodged report at Police Station, which is Ex. PW 1/A. In cross- examination, he has stated that the truck of the respondent was taken into possession after twenty days. The name of the respondent was disclosed to him by Devi Ram. 5. PW 2 Sunil Kumar has stated that in the year 1989, he was conductor on truck No. HP 28-2774 and Nikka Ram was the driver. On 19.11.1998 after loading the truck they were going to Hoshiarpur. Driver Nikka Ram was shutting the driver side `Dala’ of the truck and he was shutting the conductor side `Dala’ of the truck. In the meantime, truck bearing registration No. HP 24-5187 came in high speed and crushed the right foot of the driver, he fell down and his leg also struck against the truck and was injured. The respondent was driving the truck. He shouted at the respondent, but in response respondent abused him. He followed the offending truck and noted down the number. Thereafter the driver was taken to hospital for first …4… aid. In cross examination, he has stated that he came to know the name of the driver after 10-11 days. 6. Both PW 1 and PW 2 have not stated that they knew the respondent before the accident and for that reason they identified the respondent at the time of accident. PW 2 has stated that the name of driver was disclosed to him by Devi Ram, but Devi Ram has not been examined. PW 1 has stated that he was shutting the `Dala’ of the truck, whereas PW 2 has stated that driver side `Dala’ was being shut by PW 1 and conductor side `Dala’ was being shut by him. PW 2 has stated that respondent after the accident fled away from the spot and he followed the truck by running and noted down the number. PW 1 has stated that the police took into possession the offending truck after twenty days of the accident. PW 2 in his cross examination has stated that respondent was not driving the truck in high speed. On that date another driver was sitting with Ram Dev. The identity of the respondent has not been established on record completely. It has also come on record that many trucks remain standing at the given time near the place of accident, but surprisingly, no independent witness from the place of occurrence was associated during the course of investigation and examined in the court. 7. PW 3 is the doctor, who has examined the complainant. PW 4 Hari Nand has proved FIR Ex. PW 1/A. PW 5 Ishwar Dutt is the Investigating Officer. These are the only witnesses examined by the prosecution. The learned trial Magistrate has drawn proper inference from the material on record and has rightly held that prosecution has failed to prove the case against the respondent …5… beyond reasonable doubt. No case for interference has been made out. 8. As a result of the above discussion, the appeal fails and is dismissed. March 18, 2008. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.