IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.A.No.173 of 2001 Reserved on 3.1.2008 Date of decision 7.1.2008 State of H.P. Appellant Versus Pushpinder Singh Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant : Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, Rajiv Sharma,J. The respondent was prosecuted in a Criminal Case No.118-1 of 99/RBT No.100-II/99 under Sections 279, 337, 304-A IPC and under section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.II, Amb and was acquitted on 5.8.2000. The State has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 5.8.2000. The brief facts as gathered from the judgment of the trial court are that on 13.9.1999 at about 1 p.m. at a place near Asha Devi Mandir Gagret the respondent was found driving a tempo bearing No.HP-19-6665 in a rash and negligent manner and he hit the same with scooter bearing No.PB-08-0984 as a result of which Manjit Singh driver of the scooter died on the spot and Manjit Kaur sitting on the scooter suffered simple injuries. Consequently, FIR Ex.PW-7/A was registered against the respondent. The prosecution had examined eight witnesses in support of its case. The respondent was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. The trial court 1 Whether reporter of local papers is allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 acquitted the respondent on 5.8.2000. The State has filed the present appeal against the acquittal of the respondent. Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General had strenuously argued that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused. She then contended that the trial court has not correctly appreciated the evidence led by the prosecution which has led to grave miscarriage of justice. Mr.Ajay Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent had supported the judgment of the trial court dated 5.8.2000. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case carefully. PW-1 Manjit Kaur has stated that on 13.9.1999 at about 7 a.m. she came on scooter with Manjit Singh to offer her prayer to Mata Chintpurni and when they were going back to Julludhur at about 1 p.m. near Asha Devi Temple a truck was coming from behind whereas a tempo was coming from opposite side. She had stated that the tempo was going at a very high speed and it hit the scooter being driven by Manjit Singh. She had admitted that at the place of accident road is steep. PW-3 Ashwani Kumar at whose behest the FIR was registered was declared hostile. He has given the speed of the tempo 20 KM per hours. According to him the scooter was being driven at a high speed and while overtaking the truck it hit the truck and fell in front of the tempo. According to him the respondent applied the brake and kept his tempo towards his own side. In the FIR Ex.PW-7/A PW-3 had stated that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the accused but while appearing in the court he stated that the scooter overtook the truck and collided with the same and fell in front of the tempo. He has also denied that the tempo was being driven at a very high speed. The contradictions in the contents of the FIR and the statement of PW-3 cast doubt in the manner in which the accident took place on 13.9.1999. It has also come in the evidence that there is a sharp turn at the place where the accident took place there is a steep gradient. The 3 photographs Ex.PW-4/A to D do not support the case of the prosecution at all. The position of the tempo and that of the scooter do not suggest that the tempo was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. True it is that PW-1 had stated that the tempo was being driven at a high speed but she has not stated that it was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The trial court has neither misread nor mis-appreciated the evidence led by the parties. Consequently, the judgment passed by the trial court calls for no interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. January 7 ,2008 (g) ( Rajiv Sharma ), J.