IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 2004 Date of Decision : June 21, 2010 State of Himachal Pradesh Appellant Versus Bansi Lal Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant : Mr. R. M. Bisht, Deputy Advocate General for the appellant/State. For the respondent : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate, with Mr. Umesh Kanwar, Advocate, for the respondent. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) For an offence, which is alleged to have been committed on 30.3.2002, accused was put to trial. In terms of judgment dated 14.10.2003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dehra in Criminal Case No. 41-II/2002, titled as State versus Bansi Lal, the accused stands acquitted of the charged offence. 2. As per the version of the prosecution on 30.3.2002 accused Sh. Bansi Lal was driving truck No. HIH – 1749. He was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner as a result of which an accident took place on the said date at about 10.00 p.m. Even though no person was injured but however a building of Kariyada Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Co-operative Society was damaged. The damage caused was to the extent of Rs. 20,000/-. Statement (Ext.PW 1/A) of Sh. Agya Ram (PW-1) was recorded by the police under Section 154 Cr. P.C. on the basis of which F.I.R. dated 31.3.2002 (Ext. PA) was registered at Police Station, Jawalamukhi. The matter was investigated and mechanical report (Ext. PW 4/A) was also obtained. 3. With the completion of investigation the challan was presented in the Court for trial. Notice of accusation was put to the accused for having committed an offence under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case the prosecution examined five witnesses. Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. was also recorded. 4. The Court below acquitted the accused for the reason that the prosecution had failed to prove the fact that the accused had been driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. 5. I have minutely gone through the statement of Sh. Agya Ram (PW-1), Sh. Jagdish Chand (PW-2), Sh. Balbir Singh (PW-3), Sh. Jagdish Chand (PW-4) and ASI-Jeet Singh (PW-5). None of the witnesses have stated as to how the accused was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. No doubt Sh. Agya Ram (PW-1) has stated that the accident occurred due to the fault of the accused for which an F.I.R. had been registered but even this fact by itself is not sufficient enough to hold the accused guilty of the charged offence. 3 6. Sh. Jagdish Chand (PW-4) who mechanically examined the vehicle in fact does not support the prosecution at all as in his cross examination he has feigned ignorance about the fact that the ‘patta’ of the vehicle had broken which is the defence taken by the accused. 7. Be that as it may be, there is no material on record to prove that the accused was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. 8. The accused has had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down in Mohammed Ankoos and others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, (2010) 1 SCC 94, it cannot be said that the Court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the person has resulted into travesty of justice. No ground for interference is called for. The present appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. June 21, 2010 (PK)