HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.A. No. : 521 of 2003 Decided on: 22.6.2010 State of Himachal Pradesh ……… Appellant. Versus Beer Singh ………Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Appellant: Mr.J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr.Ashok Sood, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J.(Oral): This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (III), Shimla, dated 22.7.2003, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the notice of accusation put to him under Sections 279, 337 of the IPC and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 20.9.2001, at 12.45 p.m., a statement was made by the complainant Virender Rohal to the police alleging therein that today at about 9.20 a.m., he was present at Shoghi Bazar alongwith one Sanjeev Kumar, who was waiting for the bus. A Tata Sumo (number given therein) came at a fast speed from Shimla side and struck against Sanjeev Kumar, who suffered injuries on parts of his body. He enquired about the name of the driver and thereafter lodged the report. Sandeep Kumar, Sunil Kumar and Hardev came to the ___________________________________________ Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - spot, picked up the injured and took him to the IGMC. On this report, a case was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed against the respondent under the above mentioned Sections, who was tried by the learned trial Court leading to his acquittal. 3. On appraisal of the evidence led by the prosecution, it is clear that the prosecution has examined 8 witnesses in all. The statements of three eye witnesses examined in the case can be said to be material. PW-1 Virender Rohal, the complainant in this case, has clearly stated that the driver struck the vehicle and went ahead of the place of accident. He followed the vehicle but he did not stop. In cross examination, he has stated that he was standing on one side of the road and Sanjeev was to cross the road and go towards the other side for boarding a bus to Shimla. He did not deny the suggestion that the accident had taken place due to the negligence of Sanjeev, injured, since there was a vehicle in between him and Sanjeev at that time. He did not deny the suggestion that the accident took place since Sanjeev Kumar was trying to cross the road and suddenly struck with the vehicle. He clearly stated that he had not seen the accident. 4. PW-2 Sandeep Rohal, another eye witness of the accident, has stated that the vehicle struck with Sanjeev Kumar and went ahead. Sanjeev Kumar suffered injuries. In cross examination, he also did not deny the suggestion that Sanjeev Kumar suddenly tried to cross the road to board the bus and struck with the vehicle. In cross examination, he has also stated that he did not see the driver and learnt - 3 - later on that Beer Singh respondent was driving the vehicle. He also stated that he cannot say as to by whose negligence this accident had taken place. He had not stated anything in regard to the speed and had not identified the driver. 5. PW-3 Sanjeev Kumar is the injured himself, who stated that the vehicle struck with him and he became unconscious and was taken to the Hospital. In cross examination, he denied the suggestion that while trying to cross the road, he struck with the vehicle, which suggestion was not denied by the other two witnesses specifically. He admitted that he was standing on the one side of the road and the bus was standing on the other side. He stated that the vehicle came rightly towards its own side. He also did not admit or deny the suggestion as to by whose negligence the accident had taken place. He never identified the driver, named him or identified him in the Court. 6. From the above discussion, it is clear from the statements of the three eye witnesses that they had not identified the driver or attributed any negligence to the accused. Therefore, prosecution has failed to prove their case and the final findings recorded by the learned trial Court that the prosecution has failed to prove their case leading to the acquittal of the respondent cannot be termed as perverse calling for an interference by this Court. 7. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal, which is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondent shall stand discharged. June 22, 2010. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge