IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No.523 of 2000 Judgment reserved on:14.5.2008. Decided on: May 15, 2008. State of H.P. …Appellant. VERSUS Hira Singh ….Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Appellant: Mr A.K.Bansal, Addl.A.G. For the respondent: Mr Lalit Sharma, Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge: This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 28.4.2000 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.2, Mandi in Criminal case No.10-I/99/97 acquitting the respondent under Sections 279, 337 I.P.C. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that respondent on 23.3.1997 at about 6.15 P.M. was driving bus No.HID-569 in rash and negligent manner and at place Baggi-Chowk while reversing the bus he struck the bus against PW-5 Maya Devi who was sitting on parapet along with Kasanu Devi and PW-4 Daya Devi. Maya Devi Whether the reporters of the local papers maybe allowed to see the judgment? Yes …2… sustained injuries. She was shifted to Sub Divisional Hospital, Sundernagar and the matter was reported to police. On 24.3.1997 A.S.I. Karam Singh visited the hospital and recorded statement of PW-4 Daya Devi under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and on that basis F.I.R. No.80/1997 dated 24.3.1997 was registered at Police Station, Balh. On completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court, notice of accusation was put to respondent under Sections 279 and 337 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution has examined nine witnesses. The statement of respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he led no evidence in defence. The learned trial Magistrate after conclusion of the trial acquitted the respondent. Hence, the appeal by the State. 3. I have heard learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant, Mr.Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent and gone through the record. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that PW-4 Daya Devi, a natural witness of the incident, has corroborated the statement of injured PW-5 Maya Devi on material particulars. The rash and negligent driving of the respondent has been proved on record and learned trial Magistrate has erred in acquitting the respondent. The evidence on record has not been properly appreciated. The learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment and has submitted that no fault can be found with the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Magistrate after due appreciation of the evidence on record. …3… 4. The statement of PW-4 under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Ext.PW-4/A was recorded on 24.3.1997 and thereafter F.I.R. Ext.PW- 8/A was registered on 24.3.1997 at 1 P.M. PW-4 in Ext.PW-4/A has stated that bus in the process of reversing struck against Maya Devi and she fell down from the parapet and sustained injuries on her head and other parts of the body. In Ext.PW-4/A the time of accident has been given at about 6.15 P.M. on 23.3.1997, the F.I.R. was registered on 24.3.1997 at 1 P.M. Delay in recording the statement Ext.PW-4/A under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and thereafter F.I.R. Ext.PW- 8/A has not been explained. In addition to this, PW-4 has made improvement and deviation in her statement when she appeared in the Court. In the Court, she has stated that when the bus was being reversed it struck against the stay wire and Maya Devi as well as to her and Kasanu Devi. All of them fell down. In her statement Ext.PW-4/A she has not stated that bus struck against the stay wire as well as to her and Kasanu Devi and they also sustained injuries. In cross examination, she has stated that she does not know about Maya Devi but bus did not strike her (PW-4). PW-5 has stated that bus struck against her and she fell down and sustained injuries. She has nowhere stated that bus struck against stay wire as well as PW-4 and Kasanu Devi. She has further stated that she became unconscious. This has not been stated by PW-4. Maya Devi, in her cross examination, has stated that she filed claim petition also which was dismissed. The statements of PW-4 and PW-5 on material particulars are not corroborating each other. PW-4 has made …4… different statements under Section 154 Cr.P.C. as well as in the Court on material particulars. It is not safe to rely on her statement. It has come on record that accident took place at a busy place but no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution. ASI Karam Singh, Investigating Officer, unfortunately died. It appears Maya Devi in some confusion fell down and sustained injuries. PW-2 Dr.D.S.Verma has proved MLC Ext.PW-2/A of Maya Devi. In cross examination, he has stated that injury can be caused if a person falls from three feet. The learned trial Magistrate on the basis of material on record has taken a possible view from the evidence on record and the inference drawn by the learned trial Magistrate is not perverse. The prosecution has failed to point out how the view taken by the learned trial Magistrate is wrong, illegal and perverse. The prosecution has failed to make out any case for interference. Resultantly, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds, furnished by the respondent, are discharged. May 15, 2008. ( Kuldip Singh ), J. (soni)