IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. 697 of 2002. Date of decision: 18.8.2009. State of H.P. ….. Appellant. Vs. Kamlesh Kumar …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. R.P.Singh, Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. Virender Singh, Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). The State has come in appeal against the judgement dated 19.6.2002 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amb, District Una in case No. 62/II of 2000. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that PW 12 Love Kumar made a statement Ex. PW 9/A under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and thereupon FIR Ex. PW 9/B was recorded at Police Station, Gagret on 19.8.2000. The further case of the prosecution is that PW 12 alongwith his family was travelling on 19.8.2000 in vehicle Tata Sumo No. HR-04-5689 and when they reached near Hanuman Temple, Gagret, his sister-in-law had feeling of vomiting and therefore, the vehicle was stopped, at that time it was 10.00 a.m. The driver Balbinder Singh alias Daljit Singh was about to open the door of the Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… vehicle, in the meantime truck No. HIK-5525 came from behind in high speed and dragged the driver of the vehicle, who suffered injuries on his left foot and lower back side. Thereafter truck driver drove their Tata Sumo and carried Balbinder Singh for treatment in hospital at Gagret. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. 3. The injured was got medically examined, site plan was prepared and on completion of investigation, challan was presented against the respondent in the court. On the basis of material on record, notice of accusation was put to respondent for offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC. The respondent did not plead guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution has examined 12 witnesses and produced many documents on record. The statement of respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the prosecution case but led no evidence in defence. The learned trial court acquitted the respondent, hence the State has come in appeal. 4. Heard and perused the record. The learned Assistant Advocate General has submitted that prosecution has proved the case against the respondent. The trial court has misconstrued, misinterpreted the material on record and has erred in acquitting the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgement. 5. PW 5 Gopal Krishan, PW 6 Daljit Singh, PW 12 Love Kumar are the alleged witnesses, who were present on the spot at the time of accident. Therefore, their statements are important to appreciate the prosecution case. PW 5 Gopal Krishan has stated that …3… they had stopped their vehicle on one side of the road. In the meantime, truck bearing No. HIK-5525 came from back side in high speed. The light of the truck struck against the driver side door of their vehicle and truck struck against Daljit Singh. Kamlesh Kumar was driving the truck. Daljit Singh received several injuries on his person. In cross-examination, he has stated that he was holding his wife, who was vomiting on the left side of the road and the vehicle. He was standing by holding his wife. He does not know personally Kamlesh nor he had any acquaintance with him. In the truck, two persons were sitting on the driver seat. 6. PW 6 Daljit Singh has stated that he was driving vehicle No. HR-04-5689 on 19.8.2000, at about 10.00 a.m. he stopped the vehicle near Hanuman Temple, Gagret as Sunita Devi had feeling of vomiting. The truck HIK-5525 came from behind in high speed and struck against him the moment he tried to open the door of the vehicle. The respondent was driving the truck. In cross-examination, he has stated that he does not know the driver. The case has been made against the respondent, therefore, the respondent is an accused. He does not know why the case was made, volunteered, he regained consciousness in the hospital and he became unconscious on the spot the moment accident took place. 7. PW 12 Love Kumar has stated that their vehicle was stopped at 10 a.m. The driver Balbinder alias Daljit opened the door of the vehicle to come out, in the meantime truck No. HIK-5525 came from behind in high speed and struck against Balbinder. The truck was being driven by the respondent. The accident took place due to …4… rash and negligent driving of the respondent. In cross-examination, he has stated that driver was Kailash and he had no acquaintance with the driver. 8. In statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW 9/A which is the first version of PW 12 before the police, he has stated that truck HIK 5525 dragged their driver as a result of which he received injuries on foot and lower back side. PW 12 in the court has given the name of truck driver Kailash, in Ex. PW 9/A the complainant has not disclosed the name of the truck driver who caused the accident. PW 5 has stated that there were two persons sitting on the driver seat. PW 6 has stated that he became unconscious the moment accident took place and he regained his consciousness in the hospital. PW 5, PW 6 and PW 12 have not stated that driver of the truck was known to them. PW 6 has stated that since the case has been instituted against the respondent, therefore, he is an accused. The perusal of statement of PW 5 indicates that accident took place when his wife was vomiting outside the vehicle on the road. PW 5 has stated that truck struck against their driver but he has not stated that the truck dragged the driver after hitting him. PW 5 has stated that truck first of all struck against the door of their vehicle. 9. PW 6 Daljit Singh has stated that truck hit him the moment he tried to come out of his vehicle after opening the door. He has not stated that he was dragged or the door of his vehicle was damaged by the truck. PW 12 has also not stated that the truck hit the door of the vehicle. He has stated that the truck hit their vehicle …5… but he has not stated that truck dragged their driver. PW 5 and PW 12 have not stated that Sunita was vomiting outside their vehicle on the road when the accident took place. The medical evidence led by the prosecution is only relevant to the extent of injuries sustained by the injured. There is no denial of the fact that PW 6 had received some injuries in the accident, but the question is who was driving the truck which caused the accident. 10. The learned trial court has noticed various discrepancies regarding the identity of the truck driver, place and the manner in which the accident allegedly took place. The learned Assistant Advocate General has failed to point out any perversity in the impugned judgement. The view taken by the learned trial court emerges from the evidence on record. It is settled law that in appeal simply because other view is possible, is no ground for converting the acquittal into conviction. The reasons given by the learned trial court for acquitting the respondent are well founded. The learned Assistant Advocate General has failed to make out any case for interference. 11. No other point was urged. 12. As a result of above discussion, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds of the respondent are discharged. August 18, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.