IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.A. No.263 of 2001 Reserved on:27.2.2008 Decided on:01.03.2008 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Jitender Kumar …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. No. For the appellant : Mr. Anil Kumar Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, J. The respondent was prosecuted in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bilaspur, in case No. 2/2 of 1998 under Section 279 and 337 read with Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act and was acquitted on 20.11.2000. Hence this appeal by the State. The brief facts of the case necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that Shri Anil Kumar, complainant, had reported the matter to the police vide his statement Ext.PW-1/A. He was working as peon in the Govt. High School Salbad. On 4.11.1997 he and Navender Kumar were coming from Shimla in jeep at about 7.30 P.M when they reached near the house of Shri Hans Raj, J.E. at Jukhala the jeep stopped. Complainant and Navender Kumar stepped down from the jeep. In the mean while one Maruti Car 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. bearing No. CHK-3551 coming from Ghagas side in a high speed struck against Navender Kumar causing injuries to him. Consequently, the FIR Ext.PW-1/B was registered against the accused. The matter was investigated by the police. The challan was put after the completion of the investigation. The prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses to prove its case. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The trial Court acquitted the accused on 20.11.2000. The learned Deputy Advocate General had strenuously argued that the prosecution has proved the case against the respondent. Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent had supported the judgment dated 20.11.2000. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. Anil Kumar (PW-1) is the complainant at whose instance FIR Ext.PW-1/B was registered against the accused. He has stated that when they got down from the jeep at Jukhala a car came from Ghagas side in a high speed and struck against Navender Kumar (PW-2). Navender Kumar was injured and was shifted to hospital. He had denied in his examination-in-chief that accused Jitender Kumar was driving the car by which the accident had taken place. Similarly, Navender Kumar (PW-2) has also not stated that the accused was driving the car involved in the accident. PW-3 Gopal Singh had only stated that he saw Navender Kumar lying on the road in wounded condition. However, he has also stated in his examination-in-chief that due to darkness he could not identify the accused. The prosecution had also produced the occupant of the car, PW-4 Sh. Sunil Kumar as witness, he was declared hostile. PW-2 has also stated in his cross-examination that he did not know the person who was driving the car involved in the accident. Dr. Roshan Lal (PW-9) had deposed that injured Navender Kumar was brought to him by the police on 4.11.1997 and he had issued MLC Ext.PW-9/A. What emerges from the evidence of the material witnesses as discussed above is that they all have deposed in examination-in- chief that they had not identified the person who was driving the car bearing No. CHK-3551 at the time of the accident. Since the material witnesses did not know the person who was driving the car involved in the accident, the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused. Consequently, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. In view of the observations made hereinabove, this Court will not interfere in the well reasoned judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Bilaspur, dated 20.11.2000. The result of the above discussion is that there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the accused stands discharged. 1st March, 2008 ( Rajiv Sharma), Judge *TM *