IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.438 of 2002 Judgment reserved on: 6.7.2009 Date of judgment: July 9, 2009 State of H.P. ..Appellant. Versus Prem Singh …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J. (Oral) State has appealed against the judgment dated 22.2.2002 of learned Judicial Magistrate, whereby Prem Singh, who was tried for offences, under Sections 279, 337 and 353 IPC, has been acquitted. A case was registered against the respondent at the instance of PW1 Constable Suresh Kumar, who reported that on 23.2.2000, he was on traffic duty near Auckland School, from 3 p.m. to 11 pm and that around 4.30 p.m, a traffic jam took place near the place he was on traffic duty, owing to the respondent reversing his Maruti Van No.HP-02- 3014. He further reported that when he went to the respondent, who was in driver’s seat and asked him, why he Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - had not been moving the vehicle to release the traffic jam, he caught hold of him by his jacket and started moving the Van and dragged him to some distance, as a result of which, he sustained injuries on his knees. It was also reported that Constable Shyam Singh, who was on duty at Lakkar Bazaar, Bus Stand and PW3 Laiq Ram, saw the incident. Respondent after some time released Suresh Kumar and sped away towards Victory Tunnel. He abandoned the vehicle near Tara Hall School and took to heels. Vehicle was taken into possession by the police on 3.3.2000, when its owner Ranvir Singh produced it to the police. Learned trial Court put the substance of accusation to the respondent and on his pleading not guilty proceeded to try him. Three witnesses, namely, PW1 Suresh Kumar Constable, PW2 Shyam Siingh and PW3 Laiq Ram, an eye witness, were examined by the prosecution. Trial Court did not believe the testimony of above-named three witnesses and acquitted the respondent. I have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General, as also learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. The very fact that the case was registered against the respondent for rash or negligent driving and in that process causing injury to Constable Suresh Kumar, PW1, - 3 - negates the story of criminal assault on the constable. There are several documents on record which belie the story that PW1 Suresh Kumar was caught hold of by his jacket. First, even though, it is recorded in the FIR that jacket got torn but the same was neither taken into possession nor produced in the Court during the course of trial. Again in the medico-legal report, mark “X”, it is mentioned that the injuries had been sustained by constable on account of hitting by a car. Seizure memo Ex.PW1/B by which Van was taken into possession also records that Van disappeared from the spot after hitting the constable. The fact that the respondent was challaned under Section 279 and 337 IPC, in addition to Section 353 IPC, also suggests that this was not a case of assault. There is absolutely no evidence that the Van in question was being driven in a rash or negligent manner and hence, conviction under Section 337 and 279 IPC, is also not possible. For the foregoing reasons, appeal is dismissed. July 9, 2009 (Surjit Singh), J. s.