Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. MP(M) No.800 of 2008 In Cr.A. No.460 of 2008. Dated of Decision: September 28, 2010. State of H.P. …. Appellant. Versus Maneshwar Parsad. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Appellant : Mr. J.S. Rana, Asstt. Advocate General. For the Respondent : None. Surinder Singh, J (oral): Heard and gone through the record. 2. The respondent was acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, as such, the instant appeal has been filed by the State. 3. In short, the prosecution story is that on 7.1.2004, the respondent was driving a Tata Mobile vehicle bearing registration No.CH-01J-5776. When it reached near ‘Shalaghat Mor’ around 5.30 p.m., it 2 dashed against HRTC bus bearing registration No.HP- 14-5314, causing damage to both the vehicles. 4. After the accident, information about it was given by someone to PW7 HC Dharam Pal, on which police party proceeded to the spot and the occupants except driver of Tata Mobile, sustained injuries. They were removed to the hospital. Statement of the driver of the Bus PW8 Kamal Jeet was recorded under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which culminated into FIR Ex.PW7/B under the aforesaid sections. 5. Police prepared the site plan and got both the vehicles mechanically examined and loss assessed from PW4 Vikas Sehdev. Police also recorded the statements of the witness and took into possession the MLCs of the injured persons. 6. After completing the investigation, challan was presented in the court for the trial of the respondent. At the end of trial, respondent was acquitted, on the ground of material contradictions appearing in the statements of PW8 Kamal Jeet, driver and PW2 Jeet Ram bus conductor. 3 7. PW2 Jeet Ram, testified during the trial of the case that at the relevant time, he was sitting on the seat No.2 of the bus and noticed that the respondent was driving his TATA Mobile rashly, which caused the accident, but this fact has been sharply contradicted by PW8 Kamal Jeet by deposing that PW2 aforesaid was sitting on the last seat meant for the conductor in the bus and not at seat No.2, at the time of alleged accident. Thus he could not have seen the alleged rash and negligent driving of the respondent. Not only this, PW5 injured Raja who was an occupant of TATA Mobile vehicle and had sustained injuries, was also examined by the prosecution to prove the rash and negligent driving by the respondent, but he did not support the case of the prosecution. Thus, the case of the prosecution shrouds with suspicion and there is no other evidence which inculcate confidence to convert acquittal into conviction. 8. Therefore, for the above reasons, in my opinion the case stands not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the petition seeking leave to appeal is rejected. Disposed of. 4 Cr.A. No.460 of 2008. In view of the rejection of the leave to appeal, this appeal has become infructuous. September 28, 2010. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.