IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.A. No.218/2001 Reserved on.7.1.2008 Decided on. 10.1.2008 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Dalip Kaul. …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. No. For the appellant : Mr. M.A. Khan and Ms. Meenakashi Sharma, Deputy Advocate Generals. For the respondent Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, J. The respondent was prosecuted in criminal case No. 165/2 of 1997 for offences punishable under sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan and was acquitted on 22.9.2000. The State has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 22.9.2000. The prosecution case in nutshell is that on the intervening night of 2/3.4.1997 at about 2.00 A.M., the accused was driving Maruti car No. HP-13-0058 on the public highway from Dharampur to Solan in a rash and negligent manner due to which the car went out of road near Surya Kiran Complex Deonghat as a result of which accused along with occupants, namely, Rakesh Kumar (PW-4) and Yogesh Sharma (PW-5) 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 sustained simple injuries whereas fourth occupant namely, Ashok Kumar received fatal injuries as a consequence of which he died. The FIR was registered and the matter was investigated and the challan was put up. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 15 witnesses. The respondent was examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused was acquitted on 22.9.2000. The learned Deputy Advocate Generals had strenuously argued that the prosecution has proved the case against the respondent- accused. Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Advocate appearing for the respondent- accused had supported the judgment dated 22.9.2000. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. PW-4 Rakesh Malhotra and PW-5 Yogesh Kumar were travelling in the car driven by the accused on the intervening night of 2/3.4.1997. PW-4 Rakesh Malhotra has categorically stated in his examination that he was sleeping at the time of accident. He did not see the car being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the accused. He had stated in his cross-examination that the car was being driven on a normal speed by the accused since it was raining at that time. Similar is the statement of PW-5 Yogesh Kumar. He has admitted in his cross- examination that the vehicle was being driven on a normal speed by the accused. This witness was declared hostile. Besides the statement of PW-4 Rakesh Malhotra and PW-5 Yogesh Kumar, the prosecution has relied upon the site plan i.e. Ex.PW-15/B. It is clear from the site plan Ex.PW-15/B that there are skid marks of the car on the road for about 3 15 feet. It is thus evident that the accused had applied the brakes, but since it was raining at that time, the car skidded out of road resulting in the accident. The report of the Mechanic Ex.PW-3/A cannot be relied upon since nothing has come on record about the experience and qualifications of the Mechanic. The Mechanic had stated that the car was totally damaged, however, he has stated that the steering system was in working order and electrical system was also in order. It is intriguing that if a car is totally damaged how the steering system was in working order. The statements of PW-4 and PW-5 suggest that the car was being driven on a normal speed and it was raining on that day. The skid marks for about 15 feet of the car on the road further suggest that the accused had taken all the precaution to avoid the accident. The report Ex.PW-3/A cannot be relied upon in view of the discussion made hereinabove. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In view of the observations made hereinabove, this Court will not interfere in the well reasoned judgment of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan dated 22.9.2000 acquitting the respondents. The result of the above discussion is that there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. The bail bonds are cancelled and surety is discharged. January 10, 2008. ( Rajiv Sharma), Judge *Awasthi*