IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.: 212 of 2001. Reserved on: 07.01.2008. Decided on: 10.01.2008. State of Himachal Pradesh. … … Appellant. Versus Jaspal Singh. … … Accused/Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant-State: Mr. M.A. Khan and Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, Deputy Advocate Generals. For the Accused/Respondent: Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, Judge: The respondent was prosecuted in Criminal case No. 157/2 of 1997 under Sections 279, 337 and 338 I.P.C. in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paonta Sahib and the respondent-accused was acquitted on 23.12.2000. The State-appellant has preferred the present appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 23.12.2000. The brief facts, which can be culled out from the judgment of the trial Court are that the complainant Sunder Singh and his brother Surat Singh boarded the bus No.HP-17-4065 on 15.1.1996 from Taruwala to Rajpura and when the bus reached near the shop of a Doctor at Nageta at 5.15 p.m., it rolled down due to rash and negligent driving of the Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - respondent and consequently the F.I.R. Ex.PW-6/A was recorded and site plan Ex.PW-8/A was prepared. The site was also got photographed vide photographs mark-1 to mark-6. The prosecution had examined as many as 8 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The trial Court acquitted the respondent on 23.12.2000. The learned Deputy Advocate Generals had strenuously argued that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused. Mr. Bimal Gupta had supported the judgment dated 23.12.2000. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. It has come in the evidence that Taruwala-Rajpura road is a katcha road and it had been raining for 2-3 days. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 have stated in unison that the bus was being plied in fast speed. PW-4, complainant, Sunder Singh had also stated that the bus fell due to fast speed. To similar effect is the statement of PW-5. However, PW-1 has admitted that the road had softened due to rain. PW-2 has also admitted in cross-examination about the softening of the road due to rain though he has denied that the road gave way due to the pressure of the bus. Similar is the admission of PW-3 in his cross-examination. PW-4 has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that it was raining for three days at the time of accident and due to pressure of the bus, the road gave way. To similar effect is the statement of PW-5. The Investigating Officer, that is, PW-8 has also admitted in his cross-examination that it had been raining for last 3-4 days. It is thus evident that the road was katcha and it was raining which had softened the road. Ex.PW-8/A, i.e. the site plan does not support the case of the prosecution. It is difficult to believe that the bus would cover a distance - 3 - of 21 feet with one of its tyre having lost tract at point “C” on a rainy day. The width of the road is 12 feet and the width of the bus is usually 7-8 feet. It cannot be presumed that the driver will drive the bus rashly or negligently on a katcha road on a rainy day. Though the Investigating Officer has got the photographs of site mark-1 to mark-6, but the photographer was not examined. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused and the trial Court has acquitted the respondent by rendering a well reasoned judgment. Consequently, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the accused-respondents stand discharged. January 10, 2008. (Rajiv Sharma), (sck) Judge.