IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.A.No.102 of 2001 Judgment reserved on 29.12.2007 Date of decision 1.1.2008 State of H.P. Appellant Versus Dinesh Kumar Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant : Mr.Virender Kumar Verma, Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr.Rajiv Jiwan, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, J. The respondent was prosecuted in criminal Case No.95-1 of 1998 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur in Criminal Case No.95- 1 of 1998 under Sections 279, 337of the IPC and were acquitted on 7.7.2000. The present appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment dated 7.7.2000. The brief facts as gathered from the judgment of the trial court are that on 16.9.1997 the driver Nirmal Ram stationed the truck at M/s V.K.Auto Store, Berri for carrying out repairs and he received information at about 10.00 p.m. that the accused was admitted in District Hospital, Bilaspur on account of injuries. On reaching the hospital the accused informed that while he was driving the truck in question it met with an accident at Behal Kandela. Consequently, the FIR was registered and investigation was carried out. The accused was examined under Section 1 Whether reporters of local papers are allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 313 Cr.P.C. The trial court acquitted the accused on 7.7.2000, hence this appeal by the State. Mr. .Virender Kumar Verma, learned Additional Advocate General had strenuously argued that the prosecution has proved the charge against the respondent and the trial court has mis-interpreted the evidence which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, learned counsel for the respondent, had supported the judgment dated 7.7.2000. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case carefully. No body has seen the accused removing the truck from M/s V.K.Auto Store, Berri nor any person has seen him driving the truck towards Bilaspur. The report of the doctor cannot be relied upon since the photographs were destroyed during the course of processing/development. No evidence has been led to suggest that the truck was being driven rashly and negligently by the accused. The MLC does not explain satisfactorily the manner in which the injuries had been received by the accused. PW-1 Nirmal Ram does state that he had parked the truck but had not stated that the same was removed by the accused. PW-2 Balak Ram has only stated that the broken glasses were taken into custody by the police in his presence. PW-3 Kamlainder has testified that the accused was deployed as conductor and Nirmal Ram was the driver of the truck bearing No. HID 8384. PW-5 Constable Lekh Raj has examined the truck on 21.10.1997 and has not found any mechanical defect. PW-7 Vipen Kumar has though stated that the truck was not found in the morning and he came to know that the truck has met with an accident near Sagar View Hotel and accused Dinesh Kumar had driven the truck. His statement is based on hearsay and cannot be relied upon. He has not 3 stated in his examination-in-chief that who had apprised him that the truck in question was taken away by Dinesh Kumar. It is thus evident that the prosecution has not proved that accused- respondent had driven the truck which met with an accident. The prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the accused-respondent are discharged. January 1,2008(g) ( Rajiv Sharma ),J.