IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 92 of 2002. Date of decision: 02.12.2008 State of H.P. ... Appellant Versus Man Singh … Respondent Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mrs. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J. (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, dated 31.7.2001, vide which the respondent was acquitted of notice of accusation put to him for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 I.P.C. read with Section 184 of Motor Vehicles Act. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 6.7.1998, at about 8.00A.M., a statement was made by one Balbir Singh under Section 154 Cr.P.C., in which he alleged that on the previous night, he was driving Tata Sumo Jeep having a dead body, which was being taken from Kullu to Mandi Govindgarh. It was also alleged that Narender Kumar, Mahender Singh, Satish Kumar and one Shyam Sunder were also with him in the Tata Sumo. They started on 5.7.1998, 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - at about 3.00P.M. and when at about 11.30 P.M., they reached at Kallar, one Tipper No. HP-11-1062 came at a fast speed. He stopped his vehicle on the left side but the Tipper driver struck his vehicle on the left side of the jeep and occupants including him suffered injuries. The matter was reported to the police. A police officer came to the spot on the next morning, recorded the statement and on the basis of which a case was registered. After investigation, the challan was filed before the learned trial Court. A notice of accusation was put to the respondent for the offences mentioned above and on conclusion of the trial, the respondent was acquitted by the learned trial Court. I have heard Mrs. Shubh Mahajan, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the State - appellant and Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, Advocate, for the respondent and have gone through the record. On a perusal of the evidence led by the prosecution, it is clear that PW-2 Balbir Singh was the driver of the Tata Sumo, in which dead body was being taken from Manali to Mandi Govindgarh, a Tipper came at a fast speed and according to the statement of PW-2 Balbir Singh, this Tipper was going on the wrong side and took a turn towards right side and hit his vehicle. His statement that the respondent was driving the vehicle rashly or negligently has been corroborated by the statements of three other occupants, namely, PW-1 Narender Kumar, PW-3 Shyam Sunder and PW-4 Satish Kumar, who all have attributed the rash and negligent driving to the respondent. Apart from this, PW-2 Balbir Singh and PW-3 Shyam Sunder have stated that the accused was under the influence of liquor at the time of occurrence. However, it has been observed by the learned trial Court considering the MLC of respondent Ext. P-5, which was admitted in the - 3 - evidence by the learned defence counsel during the trial and a perusal of the same shows that it was specifically mentioned in the MLC of respondent Ext. P-5 that the patient has not consumed alcohol. This clearly shows that all the witnesses have deposed falsely in this regard to shift the burden of negligent driving upon the respondent. All these witnesses have stated falsely that the respondent had consumed alcohol or was under the influence of liquor, which was not so observed in the MLC of respondent Ext. P-5. This clearly shows that all these witnesses are interested witnesses, so that the respondent is held guilty and for that reason they have deposed falsely. Apart from the above, the learned trial Court clearly observed that there is a statement of PW-7 S.I. Gian Chand, Investigating Officer and a perusal of site plan prepared by him shows that the truck was going on its right direction, whereas Tata Sumo being driven by complainant Balbir Singh was standing on the wrong side. This observation has been made from the statement of PW-7 S.I. Gian Chand and the site plan prepared by him. PW-6 Lekh Raj, Mechanic, who had examined the vehicles and had given his report, has also stated that the Tata Sumo was standing on the wrong side at the spot. PW-5 Sita Ram, recovery witness to the recovery memos Ext. PW5/A and PW5/B, has also stated similarly. Coming to the site plan Ext. PW7/B, Tata Sumo was going from Bilaspur to Swarghat and therefore, Tata Sumo Jeep should have been on its left side but it is standing in the left side of the road, meaning thereby that an attempt to save, complainant may have taken his jeep to the other side of the road, which observation has been made by the Investigating Officer in his statement and other witnesses. It is also clear that the truck had struck on the left side of the jeep and if both the truck and jeep were - 4 - coming from different sides, the truck was likely to strike on the right side and not on the left side. Therefore, the learned trial Court had rightly drawn the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove that the respondent was driving his vehicle rashly or negligently, which findings cannot be termed as perverse, keeping in view the above discussion and these do not call 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. Bail bonds furnished by the respondent stand discharged forthwith. (V.K. Ahuja), December 02, 2008 Judge (BSS) - 5 -