IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No.559 of 2002 Date of decision : July 9, 2009 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Surjit 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. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) State has appealed against the judgment, dated 10th May, 2001, of learned trial Magistrate, whereby respondent, who was tried for offences, punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, has been acquitted. 2. Case was registered, under the aforesaid provisions of the Indian Penal Code, against the respondent, at the instance of PW-3 Nand Kishore, a Scooter rider, on 10th October, 1995. As per FIR, lodged by said Nand Kishore, on 10th October, 1995, around 7.45 a.m., when he was riding Scooter No.HP-38-4446, with a young man occupying the pillion and reached a place called Sukhar, on Jassur-Raja-ka- Talab road, a bus came from the opposite direction and stopped to let the passengers alight. In the meanwhile, a mini bus, which was being driven by the respondent, also came from that Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… very direction, at a very fast speed and after overtaking the stationary bus, referred to earlier, hit his Scooter, as a result of which he and the man occupying the pillion fell down alongwith the Scooter. He further reported that he sustained injuries, as a result of that accident and the man sitting on the pillion died, on the spot. 3. Police investigated the case and challaned the respondent. During the course of trial, police examined PW-3 Nand Kishore, injured, and PW-5 Dhian Singh, who allegedly saw the accident taking place. 4. PW-5 Dhian Singh did not support the prosecution version. PW-3 Nand Kishore stated that the bus was being driven by the respondent. In the FIR, the name of the driver is recorded as Raju. Number of the offending bus does not figure in the FIR. There is absolutely no evidence, indicting that the respondent, whose name, as per record of this case, is Surjit Singh, is also known by the name of Raju. Respondent denies that he was driving the bus. Police led no evidence, except the testimony of injured PW-3 Nand Kishore to prove that it was the respondent who was driving or supposed to be driving the vehicle, at the relevant time, though it could have very easily been proved by examining the owner of the bus. 5. Also, it appears from the evidence on record, particularly site plan Ex. PW-9/A that the width of the pucca portion of the road on the spot is 23 feet. There was seven feet wide pucca portion of the road, to the left of the site where the Scooter was hit. The fact belies testimony of PW-3 Nand …3… Kishore that he had taken his Scooter to his extreme left, on the kutcha portion. Not only this, the site plan shows that the Scooter was being driven seven feet inside the road from the edge. The injured ought to have moved his Scooter further to his left, on seeing the bus, coming from the opposite direction. In view of the abovestated position, I see no merit in the appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. July 9, 2009(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J