IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA: Cr.A.No.339 of 2001. Date of Decision :28th April, 2008. State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus: Surma Singh. …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting?1 For the appellant: Mr.Vivek Thakur, Addl. Advocate General with Ms.Subh Mahajan, Dy. Advocate General. . For Respondent. Mr.Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J(Oral). The present appeal arises out of the judgment dated 25th August, 2000 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh in Criminal Case No. 187 of 1998 titled as State of H.P. Vs. Surma Singh acquitting the accused of the charged offence under Sections 279, 337,338 and 201 I.P.C. and Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. As per the case of the prosecution on 21st August, 1997 at about 8.45 A.M., scooter bearing registration No HR-03-0096 being driven by the accused came in a rash and negligent manner and hit Smt. Kamla Devi at a place known as Baidya Nath Factory at Baddi , H.P. Due to the accident Smt. Kamla Devi fell on the ground and sustained injury. The incident was witnessed by Shri Hakam Chand (PW-1) and Smt. Jyoti Devi (PW-3). PW-1 signalled the accused to stop the vehicle but,however, he fled away from the spot. Smt. Kamla 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Devi (PW-2) was got medically examined at Regional Hospital, Nalagarh and the police was also informed of the accident. Statement of the complainant under Section 154 Cr.P.C (Ext.P-1) was recorded and based on the same F.I.R. No. 0074 dated 31st July, 1998 (Ext.P-7) was registered with Police Station, Barotiwala under Sections 279, 337 and 201 I.P.C. During the investigation the vehicle was impounded vide recovery memo Ext.P-2 and the medical records Ext.P-5 and Ext.P-6 was also taken on record. The challan was presented in the Court for trial. Notice of accusation was put to the accused under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 201 I.P.C. and Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act to which the accused did not plead guilty and claim trial. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses and the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was also recorded. Appreciating the material on record, the court below acquitted the accused for the reason that the prosecution was not able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is the defence of the accused that he was falsely implicated in the case and he was neither driving the vehicle nor the said vehicle was involved in the alleged accident. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. From the sworn testimony of Dr.Sharat Gargia (PW-4) and Dr.Sandhya Gargia (PW-5), who have proved the medical record Ext.P-5 and Ext.P-6, it is evident that the complainant (PW-2) did sustain injury on her body. However, that fact by itself would not be 3 sufficient to prove the fact that the accused was driving the vehicle in question at the relevant point in time. Hakam Chand (PW-1) and Smt. Jyoti Devi (PW-3) witnessed the occurrence of the accident in which Smt. Kamla Devi (PW-2) was hit and suffered injury. Sh. Mangal Singh (PW-6) and H.C.Hoshiyar Singh (PW-7) are the police officials who have proved the case of the prosecution. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 have not identified the accused in the court. PW-1, who was declared hostile, has specifically stated that he could not state with certainty as to whether the accused was driving the vehicle at the relevant time. PW-2 and PW-3 are totally silent on this aspect. Even with regard to the involvement of the vehicle in the accident there is contradiction. PW-1 has deposed that the vehicle involved in the accident was bearing registration No.HR-03-0096 and PW-2 and PW-3 are silent about this aspect. But, PW-7 has deposed that it was vehicle No. HR--30-0096 which was involved in the accident. There is doubt with regard to the identity of the accused and the vehicle in the alleged accident. Therefore, the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court below has correctly appreciated the material in its entirety. I see no illegality or perversity in the same and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds are discharged. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. April 28, 2008(R) 4