IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No.686 of 2000. Judgment reserved on: 14.3.2008 Date of decision: 17.3.2008 State of H.P. …….Appellant Vs. Omkar Dutt …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Appellant : Mr. Ansul Kumar Bansal, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 9.6.2000 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rampur Bushahr in case No.68-2 of 99 arising out of FIR No.27/99, Police Station, Rampur Bushahr, acquitting respondent under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 15.2.1999 at about 8.15 am at place Talai the respondent was driving three wheeler bearing registration No. HP-50-0524, on a public road and due to his rash and negligent driving the three wheeler was involved in an accident, causing simple and grievous injuries to PW-6 Sangat Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes …2… Ram, Dhan Paul, Ribu and Dhanna Devi. The injured were removed to Referral hospital, Rampur. The Medical Officer referral hospital, Rampur informed the police on telephone that some persons injured in an accident were admitted in the hospital. On this information HC Amar Nain and constable Suresh Kumar were sent to hospital, vide rapt No.10 dated 15.2.1999. The statement Ex.PW-6/A of PW-6 Sangat Ram was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and thereafter FIR Ex.PW-7/A was registered. The injured were medically examined vide MLCs Ex.PA, Ex.PB, Ex.PC and Ex.PD and nature of injuries were opined to be simple and grievous. The Investigating Officer visited the spot, prepared spot map Ex.PW-8/A and got three wheeler mechanically examined vide mechanical report Ex.PW-4/A. On completion of investigation challan was presented in the Court against the respondent under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC. The notice of accusation was put to the respondent accordingly, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined eight witnesses. The statement of respondent was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. He led no evidence in defence. The learned trial Magistrate acquitted the respondent as noticed above, hence, this appeal. 3. I have heard Mr. A.K. Bansal, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State and Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, learned counsel for the respondent and gone through the record. It has been submitted on behalf of the State that the respondent rashly and negligently drove the three wheeler and caused accident, which caused injuries …3… to the persons who were sitting in the three wheeler. The learned trial Magistrate has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and has erred in acquitting the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal. 4. PW-1 Dhanveer has stated that on 15.2.1999 he was sitting in the three wheeler, his son, Dhanna Devi and Sangat Ram were also sitting in the three wheeler. The respondent was driving the three wheeler. The three wheeler struck against a drum at place Talai and rolled down towards river Satluj. He sustained injuries on the head, arm and on the back. They were medically examined. The speed of the three wheeler earlier was normal but after striking the drum the speed had increased. In his statement he has nowhere stated that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent. In cross-examination he has not denied that the accident took place due to mechanical fault. PW-2 Shiv Ram is a witness of taking into possession of three wheeler by the police. PW-3 Dhanna Devi has stated that they were going to Rampur from Duttnagar in three wheeler, the respondent was driving the three wheeler. She, Dhanveer, Sangat Ram and a child were sitting in the three wheeler. The respondent stopped the three wheeler at 2-3 places by saying that it is a new vehicle. At the time of accident the speed of three wheeler was normal. She sustained injuries on her head, arm and on the back. She has no where stated that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of …4… the respondent. In her cross-examination she has not denied that there was mechanical defect in the three wheeler. 5. PW-4 Udham Ram has mechanically examined the three wheeler and prepared report Ex.PW-4/A, he has stated that he is serving as mechanic in the HP.PWD workshop for the last 27 years. In cross-examination he has admitted that near steering in a three wheeler there is a pin, if that pin is taken out then steering becomes free. PW-5 Ramesh Kumar is a photographer and he took photographs Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3. PW-6 Sangat Ram has stated that on 15.2.1999 they were in the three wheeler. The respondent was driving the three wheeler. At place Talai the three wheeler rolled down towards river and he sustained some injuries in the accident. He was admitted in the hospital. The police recorded his statement Ex.PW-6/A. In his statement he has not stated that respondent was driving the three wheeler rashly and negligently. He has rather stated that respondent was driving the three wheeler properly. PW-7 HC Dula Ram is a formal witness regarding regisitration of FIR Ex.PW- 7/A . PW-8 HC Amar Nain has stated that he has recorded the statement Ex.PW-6/A of Sangat Ram under Section 154 Cr.P.C. He applied for the medical examinations of the injured and obtained their MLCs. He visited the spot and prepared spot map Ex.PW-8/A. The three wheeler was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-2/A and was also got mechanically examined vide report Ex.PW-4/A. He recorded the statemens of witnesses and after completion of investigation submitted the file to the SHO who prepared the challan. …5… The respondent has denied the prosecution case in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 6. No prosecution witness has stated that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent of three wheeler. On the contrary PW-4 has stated that in case the pin near the steering of three wheeler is taken out then the steering becomes free. In mechanical report Ex.PW-4/A brakes, steering, clutch of three wheeler were found in broken condition. The defence of the respondent is that accident took place due to mechanical defect and this suggestion was given to some of the prosecution witnesses also. PW-1 has stated that speed of three wheeler earlier was normal but after striking the drum the speed had increased. PW-6 has stated that respondent was driving the three wheeler properly. PW-3 has stated that at the time of accident the speed of three wheeler was normal. The learned trial Magistrate has properly appreciated the material on record. The inference drawn from the evidence on record by the learned trial Magistrate cannot be said to be wrong, no case for interference has been made out. Hence, appeal is dismissed. ( Kuldip Singh ) Judge. March 17, 2007 (sks)