IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.144 of 2003. Date of Decision: 6th May, 2010. _______________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh ….Appellant. Versus Anirudh ……..Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Additional Advocate General and Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH, J. (Oral) : 1. Respondent was acquitted by the trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. His acquittal is challenged by the State in this appeal. 2. Heard and gone through the record. 3. The prosecution case is that on 28th March, 1998 at about 11.30 a.m., truck No.HP-21-2551 was allegedly driven rashly and negligently by the respondent. When it crossed “Khad Pull”, it struck against the scooter being driven by Rajesh Kumar with pillion Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - rider, Sanjay Kumar, resulting into the accident. Pillion rider died on the spot and Rajesh Kumar succumbed to his injuries while being taken to hospital. PW1 Sanjeev Kumar, who was having his barber-shop nearby reported the accident to the police, on the basis of his statement FIR Ext.PW-1/A was formally registered. 4. Police reached the spot, prepared the site plan and took the photographs. After obtaining the post-mortem of the deceased persons, mechanical report of the truck in question and on completing the Challan, it was presented in the Court for the trial of the respondent under the aforesaid Sections. 5. After full-fledged trial, the respondent was acquitted by the learned trial Court. 6. PW-1 Sanjeev Kumar though testified that the speed of the truck was normal, but he could not identify the respondent. He also stated that after the accident the scooter in question was dragged upto a distance of about 25 meters on the road and ultimately struck against the right side beam of the bridge. PW-8 Gurbax Singh identified the respondent as driver of the offending vehicle, but he stated that the respondent was at high speed. Both these witnesses stated that on the side of the scooter there was an ample space and - 3 - after the accident on the left side of the truck a heavy vehicle could pass through. 7. Site plan Ext.PW-6/A depicts the actual position with respect to the accident in question. The accident had taken place at point “D” and the space towards the right side was 10 feet and from that place the space towards left was 12 feet, meaning thereby the road was 22 feet in width at the place of accident. Photograph Ext.PW-5/E shows that the scooter had struck against inner side of the front right side wheel of the truck, thereafter the truck-driver lost control and applied the brakes. There are skid marks as shown in the site and the truck struck on the side of the bridge by which the central bolt got damaged as reported by the mechanic. 8. It is not understood as to why the scooterist left space in his left side and was driving his scooter in the centre of the road, whereas the site plan prepared by PW-6 SI/SHO Harnam Singh and the witnesses proves that the truck was on its own side and there was no occasion for him to apply the brakes unnecessarily when there was enough space for the scooter to cross and it was in a normal speed as stated by PW1. Though, a suggestion has been put to PW-8 though denied that the scooter while overtaking the van had come to the side - 4 - of the truck, the same appears to be plausible. This fact has also been taken note of and weighed by the learned trial Court, which is borne out from the evidence on record. Thus, the offence of rash and negligent act of driving by the respondent fell short of the required standard to fasten the criminal liability for the offences charged against the respondent. Therefore, in the circumstances aforesaid, the acquittal of the respondent cannot be interfered with, as such the appeal is dismissed. 9. The respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him at any stage during the proceedings of this case. 10. Send down the record forthwith. May 6, 2010. (Surinder Singh), J. (rc)