IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.645 of 2002 Decided on: July 7, 2009. State of H.P. …Appellant Versus Daljit Singh …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General For the Respondents : Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) State has appealed against the judgment dated 10.6.2002 of learned Sessions Court, whereby accepting the appeal of the respondent against the judgment of his conviction, dated 31.1.2000, for offences, under Sections 279, 304-A and 201 IPC and Sections 187 and 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, he (the respondent) has been acquitted. 2. Prosecution case is as follows. Respondent was employed as driver on Haryana Roadway Bus No. HR-37- 3562, in the year 1997. On 16.2.1997 at 12.05 PM, PW-1 Kishan Chand was present by the side of the road at village Bhera. His grand daughter, aged about 2½ years, named Amanpreet, was holding his finger. Parents of the child were present on the other side of the road. They were waiting for a Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… bus to go to village Basdehra to attend a marriage in that village. Around 12.05 PM, the bus, in question, came from Una side. It was being driven by the respondent in a rash or negligent manner. On seeing the bus, coming in a rash manner, PW-1 Kishan Chand, withdrew backward and in that process the child lost hold of his finger and was hit by the bus. The child died on the spot. 3. Matter was reported to the police, vide FIR Ext.PW1/A. In the FIR complete number of the bus was not given. It was stated that it was a bus of Haryana Roadways and its number was 3562. Letters ‘HR”, indicating State of registration and the figure representing series, were missing from the FIR. Bus, in question, was spotted at Bus Stand, Amb, on 7.3.1997. It was only then that it was taken into possession by the police. Respondent was arrested on 8.3.1997. On completion of investigation Challan was filed against the respondent. 4. Trial Magistrate put substance of accusation to the respondent. He pleaded not guilty. Prosecution then adduced evidence. It examined a number of witnesses, who testified that the accident had taken place, because of excessive speed of the bus. Only one of those witnesses, namely PW-1 Kishan Chand, gave the complete number of the bus. Learned trial Magistrate held the respondent guilty and convicted him of offences, under Sections 304-A and 279 IPC and Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months, for offence, under Section 304-A …3… IPC, fine of Rs.500/- for offence under Section 279 IPC and fine of Rs.100/- for offence, under Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 5. Respondent filed appeal against the judgment of the trial Magistrate, which has been accepted by the Sessions Court, vide impugned judgment. 6. I have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General and the learned counsel for the respondent and have also gone through the record. 7. Learned Sessions Court has observed that complete number of the bus was not known to PW-1 Kishan Chand and other witnesses, who clamed to have witnessed the accident and that is why in the FIR complete number is not mentioned. I see no reason to disagree with this observation of the learned Sessions Court. In addition to the reasons given by the learned Sessions Court for holding such a view, there is another reason and the same is that despite the case having been reported to the police on the very day of the occurrence and in the FIR it having been got recorded that the bus was of Haryana Roadways and its number was 3562, it took the police more than 15 days to locate the bus and to arrest the respondent. There was also delay of about five hours in lodging the FIR, which suggests that bus number was not known. 8. Learned Sessions Court has also observed that from the evidence on record it appears that while crossing the road, the girl lost hold of the finger of her grandfather, …4… because her parents were there on the other side of the road. This observation is probabilised by the statement of PW-1 Kishan Chand, who stated that on seeing the bus, when he withdrew backward, the child lost hold of his finger. 9. In view of the above stated position, I see no reason to interfere with the judgment of the first appellate Court. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. July 7, 2009 (ss) ( Surjit Singh ), J.