IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 560 of 2003 Date of decision:8.7.2010 State of H.P. Appellant Versus Ishwar Singh Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant: Mr. J.S.Guleria, Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr.Ajay Chandel, Advocate. V.K.Ahuja, J. (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the State against the judgment of the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class (2) Dharamshala dated 8.8.2003 vide which the respondent was acquitted of the notice of accusation put up to him for offences under Sections 297 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that on 30.1.2002 at about 1.30 P.M. during lunch time, PW-3 Rajnish along with his friends was playing on the road side. A Jeep bearing registration No. HP-02-8906 being driven by the respondent, came at a high speed from Chari side and hit PW-3 Rajnish who fell down and suffered injuries on his leg and head. The injured was taken to the private clinic where he was provided first aid. On the next date, the father of the injured reported the incident to the police on the basis of which, FIR was registered and after investigation, challan was filed as Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. against the respondent who was tried by the learned trial Court leading to his acquittal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 4. On appraisal of the evidence led by the prosecution, it is clear that four witnesses have been examined as eye witnesses. PW-3 Rajnish Kumar is the injured, who stated that he was standing on the road side and the jeep came and struck against him. He did not state that the jeep was being driven rashly or negligently. He did not state as to what was the speed of the vehicle. 5. PW-4 Arun Kumar has also stated that the injured was standing near the road and the accident took place due to high speed and negligence of the respondent. He also did not state about the speed of the vehicle at the relevant time. PW-5 Varinder Kumar the third eye witness has stated that Rajnish Kumar was standing on the road side. The vehicle came from the other side, the road was vacant and when Rajnish tried to cross the road and he struck against the vehicle which clearly shows that that the accident has taken place due to the negligent act of the injured himself. The brother of the injured PW-7 Suku has also been examined. He has clearly stated the injured was playing in the ground and when he tried to cross the road, he struck against vehicle. He however, stated that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent but this cannot be treated as correct in view his own admission that the injured had tried to cross the road at the relevant time. PW-6 Dr. Lachhman Singh did not support the prosecution story. 6. From the above discussion of the evidence that the eye witnesses examined by the prosecution, have not stated anything in their evidence as to what was the speed of the vehicle or that the vehicle was being driven rashly or negligently in view of their own admission that while crossing the road suddenly, he struck with the vehicle and the accident took place. The findings of the learned trial Court on the basis of such evidence cannot be termed as perverse calling for interference by this Court. 7. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed accordingly. Bail bonds furnished by the respondent shall stand discharged forthwith. July 8, 2010 ( V.K.Ahuja ), (sds) Judge