HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.A.No. 357 of 2001 Decided on: 23.4.2008. State of Himachal Pradesh ………Appellant. Versus Vikas ……Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellant: Mr.J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. For the respondent: Mr.Ajay Sharma, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the State against the judgment of the court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.1, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., dated 15.3.2001, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the accusation under Sections 279 and 337 IPC. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 3.12.1999, the complainant PW-8 Vijay Kumar was going in the vehicle DAG-3078 and when he reached near Ghatnalu, a Maruti Van No.HP-02-6001, which was being driven by the respondent, came in rash speed and the complainant stopped his vehicle on the side of the road. However, it was alleged that since the respondent was _______ 1.Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - driving the vehicle in a high speed, his vehicle dashed with the vehicle of the complainant and the complainant and other person Munish Kumar suffered injuries. On this report, a case was registered, challan was filed against the respondent, who was tried by the learned trial Court leading to his acquittal. Heard. From a perusal of the record of the case, it is clear that there are only two eye witnesses in the case whose statements can be said to be material and it has to be seen as to whether their statements are sufficient to prove the guilt of the respondent or not. One of the injured PW-4 Munish Kumar has appeared in the witness box and has stated that the respondent brought the vehicle in a high speed and negligently, resulting in the accident. He did not specify as to which portion of the vehicle was hit. He simply stated that the respondent was coming in a high speed and was driving the vehicle negligently. In cross examination, he has stated that he did not know the name of the driver and has not seen the driver prior to the accident. He further admitted in cross examination that at the time of accident, he was sleeping which clearly shows that he has not seen the manner in which the accident took place and his statement cannot be said to be supporting the case of the prosecution. He also admitted that the accident took place at the turning. The other eye witness and the second injured was PW-8 Vijay Kumar who has lodged the report with the police. In his statement, he has stated that the respondent came from other side. He did not give side and struck his vehicle with his vehicle and the accident had taken place due to the negligence of the respondent as well as his high speed. However, he did not state the manner of - 3 - the accident or the speed of the vehicle. In cross examination, he admitted that the accident took place at the turning. He also stated that since it was a turning, he cannot say about the speed of the vehicle or as to by whose negligence or high speed the accident took place. In view of these statements of both the injured, it is clear that they do not prove the guilt of the respondent beyond any reasonable doubt. The other plea taken by the learned trial Court was in regard to cutting in the mechanical examiner’s report and at one stage it has been observed that the stearing wirm was broken and there is cutting in this aspect. It has not been explained as to who has done these cuttings. There are no initials in the report of the mechanic. In answer to question No.12 put to the respondent under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he has stated that the stearing wirm of the van was broken before the accident, which clearly shows that the accused has taken the plea in the alternative that the accident had not taken due to his rash and negligent driving. In view of the above discussion, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt as against the respondent cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court. Therefore, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the State and the same is dismissed accordingly. Bail bonds furnished by the respondent shall stand discharged. April 23, 2008 (TILAK) (V.K. Ahuja), Judge.