IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. A No. 140/2003 Date of decision: 16. 3. 2010 State of H.P. …..Petitioner Versus Jagdish Kumar ……Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 . For the Appellant: Mr. Anshul Bansal, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. Bhupinder Kanwar, Advocate Surinder Singh (Oral) State has challenged the judgment of acquittal, passed by the learned trial Court in case No. 132-1 of 98/76- 2 of 1998, decided on 30.12.2000, under Sections 279 and 304-A Indian Penal code. Heard and gone through the record. Succinctly stated the facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 27.5.1998 at about 8.45 a.m., Truck No. HP-08-0609 was not getting started as such; it was put on a slope by the respondent driver. PW5 Ramesh Kumar and PW6 Mohar Singh were giving push to it and the cleaner of the said truck was giving the signal to the driver to make it 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? - 2 - in reverse. The driver was looking after his side for clearance but in that process it hit Ranvir Singh on the cleaner side, with the result he fell down and got crushed under the left rear tyre. Police was informed and a case under the aforesaid Sections was registered. Medical examination of the dead body was done. The case was presented against the respondent for his trial. At the end of the trial, he was acquitted on the ground that the he was not proved to have been driven the said vehicle rashly and negligently. Prosecution has put reliance on the statement of PW1 Hari Singh, a companion of deceased. He stated that he along with deceased was going ahead on the road and the vehicle in question was coming in reverse order. The cleaner side back portion of the vehicle got struck against the deceased and he fell down and came under the rear tyre towards cleaner side. He also admitted that one person, who was acting as cleaner, was helping its driver to reverse the vehicle. The cleaner was not made an accused as he could not be identified. PW5 Ramesh Kumar and PW6 Mohar Singh, who were pushing the truck to make it start, categorically stated that the respondent was driving the said truck with due care and caution and no fault could be attributed to him. PW6 Mohar Singh testified that Hari Singh aforesaid along with his friend was walking on the road carelessly. He also stated that PW5 Ramesh Kumar stated that the cleaner of the truck was giving signal to the driver - 3 - to reverse the vehicle but Hari Singh and his deceased friend did not care for the coming truck. Ranvir Singh got a push and struck against the back side of the truck and the driver immediately stopped the vehicle. The above witnesses have probablized the defense. Learned Public Prosecutor did not seek permission to cross-examine or re-examine the aforesaid witnesses, therefore, their statements have to be accepted. The rash or negligent act of the respondent has not been proved. There are two versions before the court and it is settled law that the version in favour of the accused has to be accepted. Keeping in view the above factual background, the acquittal of the respondent cannot be faulted. As such, the judgment of acquittal does not require any interference hence, the appeal is dismissed. Send down the record. March 16, 2010 (Surinder Singh), (cm) Judge