IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) Nos.366 of 2011. Decided on: June 29, 2011. _____________________________________________________________ State of H. P. ……..Appellant/Petitioner. Versus Satish Kumar. …..Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? For the appellant : Mr. A.K.Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent : None. ____________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH,J (oral): Cr.M.P.(M) Nos.366 of 2011. Record requisitioned perused. 2. The respondent was acquitted by the learned trial Court, for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code against which State felt aggrieved and filed the appeal accompanied by this application seeking leave to appeal. 3. Heard. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - 4. In short, the prosecution story can be stated thus. On 11.7.2009, at about 4.15 p.m., PW1 Amit Sood is alleged to have stopped his Motorcycle bearing registration No.HP-37A-7360, on the side of the road at Palampur and remained sitting thereon, waiting for PW6 Manoj Kumar, who was sent by him to bring money from his shop. In the meantime, respondent, who was driving Maruti Car No.HP-37B- 2330 came in a high speed and hit the Motorcyclist on its back causing accident. In that accident, the bumper of the car as well as rim of the rear tyre of the motorcycle got damaged. 5. PW1 Amit Sood sustained minor injuries. He was taken to the hospital for medical examination. Police recorded his statement under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which culminated into present FIR. 6. During investigation, police prepared site plan of the place of accident and also took the photographs of both the vehicles. The mechanical examination of both the vehicles was also got conducted. The reports are Exts.PA and PB. The Medico Legal Certificate of PW1 Amit Sood is Ext.PC. - 3 - Respondent was also got medically examined as he also sustained minor injuries. His MLC is Ext.PD. 7. After completing the investigation, challan was presented for the trial of the respondent. He was accordingly charge-sheeted, tried and acquitted, on the probability of the defence raised by the accused and corroborated by PW7 Sanjay Kumar. 8. The stand taken by the respondent was that the Motorcyclist came from the opposite direction in rash and negligent manner and immediately cut his motorcycle in the wrong side and suddenly stopped in front of his shop, which caused the accident. Though, this suggestion has been denied by PW1 Amit Sood Motorcyclist, but it stands corroborated by PW7 Sanjay Kumar. Learned Public Prosecutor was also allowed to re-examine this witnesses on this point, but nothing material could be extracted from him. 8. The respondent in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has also attributed the rash and negligent driving by the Motorcyclist. Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances, two views are deducible from the - 4 - evidence on record, out of which one probablised the defence of the accused. 9. It is a settled law that the benefit of the view favourable to the accused has to be given to him, which was rightly accorded by the learned trial Court. In these circumstances, leave to appeal is rejected. 10. In view of the rejection of the leave to appeal, the appeal does not survive, hence dismissed. (Surinder Singh), Judge. June 29, 2011 (Pds)