IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.683 of 2002 Decided on: July 9, 2009. State of H.P. …Appellant Versus Swaran Singh …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General For the Respondent : Mr. Omesh Sharma, Advocate, vice Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) State has appealed against the judgment dated 12.7.2002 of trial Magistrate, whereby respondent, who was tried for offences, under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC and Sections 184 and 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, has been acquitted. 2. Allegations, on which the respondent was put on trial, may be summed up thus. On 10.7.1997, Bus No.HP-36- 0348, belonging to Himachal Road Transport Corporation and being driven by PW-1 Bhadur Singh, left Chandigarh for Kotla. Around 5.45 PM, when the bus reached near a place called Basadi Kohala, Truck No. HPK-5501, being driven by the respondent and belonging to Sujanpur IPH Sub Division, came Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… from the opposite direction at a very fast speed. On seeing the truck, coming at a fast speed, driver of the bus took the bus to his extreme left and brought it to a halt. Truck passed by the bus, without slowing down. Its hooks grazed against the bus, as a result of which side of the bus was damaged and two passengers sustained injuries. One of the passengers sustained grievous injuries. Matter was reported to the police, immediately, by the driver of HRTC bus, namely PW-1 Bahadur Singh. Injured passengers were got medically examined. Mechanical test of Truck No.HPK-5501 was got conducted. It was found to be in working order. 3. Respondent denied that his truck was involved in any accident. Trial Court acquitted the respondent, holding that the evidence on record did not prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the truck was being driven by the respondent and it was involved in any accident. 4. I have perused the record and heard the learned Assistant Advocate General as also the learned counsel for the respondent. 5. Admittedly, at the time when the FIR was lodged, number of the Truck was not known. Accident allegedly took place at 5.30 PM. FIR Ext. PW1/A was lodged at 7 PM. Till then the number of the offending Truck was not known, though it was known that it belonged to IPH Department. 6. PW-1 Bahadur Singh, driver of the bus, while in the witness box, admitted that he was not knowing the number of the Truck nor could he see the man in driver’s seat. …3… Conductor of the bus, namely PW-2 Bachitter Singh, though did state that he had noticed the number of the Truck, yet from fact that the number does not find mention in the FIR, which was lodged two hours after the accident, it can legitimately be presumed that even he did not notice the number. 7. Other witnesses, who were traveling by the bus, could have also not read the number of the offending truck, because when the driver, who was in the front seat, could not read it, how could have the passengers read the same. 8. In view of the above stated position, I do not consider this to be a fit case for interference in the judgment of acquittal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. July 9, 2009 (ss) ( Surjit Singh ), J.