IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 428 of 2003 Date of decision: 18.05.2003 State of Himachal Pradesh. Appellant Versus Tarsem Singh. Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant: Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. Advocate General with Mr. J.S.Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. R.K.Gautam, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Mehar Chand, Advocate. V.K.Ahuja,,J (Oral) This is an appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the Judgment of the Court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palampur dated 5.2.2001 vide which the respondent was acquitted of the notice of accusation put up to him for offences punishable under Section 279/337 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on receipt of an information that bus No.HP 39-1272 has met with an accident at Ghar Jamula on 11.12.1995 at about 3.40 P.M., the case was registered by the police and the passengers were examined medically. On completion of the investigation, the challan was filed before the learned trial Court who tried the respondent for offences punishable under Sections 279/337 IPC leading to his acquittal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 4. On appraisal of the evidence led by the prosecution it is clear that the defence taken by the respondent, is that since one part of the bus ‘arm bend’ had broken at the time when the accident had taken place and he respondent struck his bus with the hill side since there was a big gorge on the other side. 5. The prosecution had examined the passengers of the bus who suffered injuries also. PW-1 Kaushalya Devi has stated that she was one of the occupants of the bus and the bus was going at a fast speed and it struck on the hill side. She stated that she along with other passengers suffered injuries and was she was also medically examined. In cross examination, she has clearly admitted that first there was a sound of a part of the bus being broken and thereafter she denied the suggestion that for this reason the respondent had struck the bus with the hill side. 6. PW-3 Savitri Devi, another occupant has also stated that the respondent was driving the bus at a fast speed and struck the bus on the hill side. In cross-examination, she denied her knowledge in case the accident had taken place due to breaking of a part of the vehicle. She denied the suggestion that the driver was driving the bus at a slow speed. However, she stated that she cannot state about the speed of the bus being an illiterate lady. 7. PW-4 Promila Devi another occupant of the bus has stated that there was a big sound from the bus and the driver struck the bus on the hill side since there was a big gorge on the other side. She was declared as hostile and was subjected to cross- examination. She clearly admitted the suggestion that the accident had taken place due to breaking of a part of the bus and the driver was not negligent. 8. Apart from the above, the prosecution has examined PW-5 Ravinder Katoch the owner of the vehicle, who has stated that the bus in question was got repaired at the spot and the ‘arm bend’ of 3 the bus had broken which was got repaired. It is the prosecution case that the vehicle was taken in possession and was got mechanically examined after 5 days. This fact has heavily weighed with the trial Court in disbelieving the prosecution story and not relying on the report of the mechanical expert that no defect was found in vehicle involved in the accident, in view of the late examination of the vehicle in question. 9. The findings recorded by the prosecution cannot be said to be perverse since there was no evidence on record to show that the respondent was driving the vehicle rashly or negligently, which fact had to be proved by the prosecution and as such the findings recorded by the learned trial Court do not call for an interference by this Court. 10. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the respondent stand discharged. 18th May, 2010 (V.K.Ahuja),J. (sds)