IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. A. No. 380 of 2002 Decided on: 23.3.2009 State of H.P. ..…Appellant Versus Kaviraj .…Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Appellant : Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. A.G. with Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant A.G. For Respondent : Mr. Himat Negi, Advocate. Surjit Singh,J. (Oral) This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 8.1.2002 of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dharamshala, whereby respondent Kaviraj, who was sent up for trial for offences, under Sections 279 and 337 IPC, has been acquitted. 2. Prosecution version which led to the trial of the respondent, may be noticed. On 2nd July, 2000, two brothers named Sagar Ram PW7 and Nagar Ram PW1 had gone to a place called ‘Sihun Nichla’ to sell mangoes. In the evening, around 7.30 P.M. the two brothers decided to go back home. They were present on two sides of the same road. Nagar Ram PW1 asked 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Sagar Ram PW7 to come to his side. Upon that Sagar Ram started crossing the road. In the meanwhile, Van No. PB-35-A- 5266, which was being driven by the respondent, came from Shahpur side. It was allegedly being driven at a very fast speed. On account of excessive speed, it hit Sagar Ram PW7, as a result of which, he fell on the road and sustained certain injuries, all of which were simple in nature. Matter was reported to the police. On completion of investigation, police challaned the respondent. 3. Trial Court has acquitted the respondent holding that the evidence does not prove the allegation of rash driving. I have perused the record and heard the learned Deputy Advocate General, as also learned counsel for the respondent. Testimony of PW1 Nagar Ram as also PW7 Sagar Ram belie the allegation that vehicle was being driven so fast as to amount to rash driving. PW1 Nagar Ram has stated that accident took place when Sagar Ram was crossing the road. Sagar Ram PW7 has also stated so. Nagar Ram says that the vehicle stopped at a distance of one and half foot after hitting Sagar Ram. Sagar Ram PW7 stated that the vehicle stopped on the spot, i.e. to say it did not move after allegedly hitting him. Now, if the vehicle had stopped on the spot or at a distance of one and half foot, as stated by PW1 Nagar Ram, it cannot be said that it was being driven very fast or in a rash manner. 4. Under these circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. (Surjit Singh),Judge. March 23, 2009 (vs) 3