IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 485 of 2002. Decided on: May 26, 2009. ____________________________________________________________ State of H.P. ……..Appellant. Versus Gian Chand. …..Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. For the respondent : Mr. Vikram Thakur, Advocate. ____________________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH,J (oral): The respondent was charge-sheeted for the offence under Sections 279, 337 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and was acquitted by the learned trial court. His acquittal has been challenged by the State in this appeal. Heard and gone through the record of the case. Succinctly, the case of the prosecution is that on 29th January, 1996, the complainant PW2 Hawaldar Anirudh Prasad was going on foot, on the road along with PW3 Rajiv Kumar and one Shiv Shanker. All were the personnels of Deepak Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. Project. It is alleged that the complainant was ahead of his colleagues while walking on the road. At about 12.15 p.m., when they reached just ahead of Totu bazzar, an HRTC bus came allegedly in high speed from behind and hit the complainant with the result, he sustained the injuries on his left knee. The bus driver sped away with the bus and the complainant could only note the number of the bus “4537”, which was enroute to Raipur from Shimla. His colleagues Rajiv Kumar and Shiv Shanker took him for treatment to the military hospital, Shimla. The information was given to the police by PW5 Subedar Amar Singh. The police recorded the statement Ex.PW2/A of the complainant under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at 4.30 p.m. at the place known as “Yaadgar” Totu about 3 K.M. away from the police station Boileauganj, Shimla, on the basis of which, FIR was registered and police started investigation of this case. Next day, i.e. on 30.1.1996, on its return, the Bus bearing No.HP-24-4537 Shimla- Raipur Service on its return was apprehended by the police. The copy of the log book was taken into possession. Police also prepared the site plan of the accident and after completing the investigation, case was presented in the court for the trial of the respondent for the offences aforesaid. A notice of accusation was put to the respondent. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined its witnesses to prove the allegation against the respondent. The medical certificate Ex.PA was tendered in evidence by the learned Public Prosecutor. The presence of the Investigating Officer could not be procured by the learned trial court, as such, the evidence of the prosecution was closed by the order of the court. The respondent was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. His case was denial simplicitor. The learned trial court did not find the statement of the complainant and his witnesses worth inspiring confidence and further observed that PW3 Rajiv Kumar did not identify the bus- driver. The another witness Shiv Shanker was not examined and it was also observed that when the complainant was ahead of his colleagues, as to how he could be hit by the bus causing the injury on his left knee, without hitting his colleagues. I have reappraised the evidence on record and I find that the complainant PW2 Anirudh Prasad has substantially improved his version when examined in the court from that of the statement Ex.PW2/A given by him to the police officer. In that statement, he did not say that on noticing the vehicle in question in a high speed signaled to the driver to stop the bus. Initially, the case of the complainant was simple that when he was walking on the road along with his colleagues, the bus had hit him. This exaggeration smacks of his statement a suspect. Further, PW3 Rajiv Kumar stated that though the complainant had noticed the number of the bus, but he did not say that he had also noticed the number of the bus in question and he did not see the respondent driving the bus aforesaid. The another fact, which causes a dent in the prosecution case is that there is Rapat No.13 dated 29.1.1996 on record, according to which at 3.40 p.m., a message was received from military hospital, Shimla to send the police constable, as a bus accident injured was brought to the hospital. If it was so, then it is not understandable as to how at 4.30 p.m., the statement of the injured could have been recorded at the place known as “Yaadgar” Totu, which is only 3 k.m. away from the Police Station Boileauganj. Ex.PA the medical certificate falsifies the fact that the injured was brought to the hospital at 3.40 p.m., because it has noticed the time 8.13 p.m. with respect to the arrival of injured in the hospital with a lacerated wound on his left knee, but neither the doctor nor the investigating officer were examined to prove the fact that the complainant had in fact sustained the injury in the bus accident. All the factors raises suspicion on the authenticity of the prosecution case and on the above standard of evidence, the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial court, cannot be converted into the conviction. Thus, in my considered opinion, findings of the acquittal are borne out from the record, as such, no interference in the impugned judgment is called for, accordingly the appeal is dismissed. The respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him during the proceedings of the case. Send down the records. (Surinder Singh), Judge. May 26, 2009. (Pds)