IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A.No.319 of 2002. Date of Decision: 23.4.2009. _____________________________________ State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Ramu Ram and another. ….Respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant : Sh. J.S.Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. For respondent : Mr.Arvind Sharma,, Advocate. ___________________________________ Surinder Singh,J(Oral). The respondents were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 180 and 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act but after the full trial at the end they were acquitted in Criminal Case No. 29/2 of 1999 by the learned trial Court on 11.12.2001. The acquittal of the respondents have challenged in this appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully examined the record. In nut shell, the prosecution story is that on 19.8.1998 respondent No.1 was driving the tractor of respondent No.2 and Sultan Singh (deceased) was also one of Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 the occupants of the tractor. At about 8.30 p.m. on the same day they were going to see the movie at Paonta Sahib. It is alleged that the tractor was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No.1. When the tractor crossed Pipe-Factory at ‘Batamandi’ a truck came from the opposite side. The driver did not slow down the tractor and it jumped from the pit-holes on the road with the result Sultan Singh fell down and was crushed under the tyres of the trolley of the tractor. Immediately he was taken to nearby ‘Vohra Hospital’, where he was declared dead. Complainant Naresh Kumar lodged the F.I.R. The police conducted the post mortem of the dead body and took the photographs. No injury except on his testicles was found on the dead body and in the opinion of the doctor the deceased had died on account of the said injuries. The final opinion was reserved to be given after the chemical analysis report, which is not on record. The Investigating Officer prepared the site plan (Ext.PW6/A) and also took the photographs. The respondent No.2 was alleged to have handed over his tractor for driving to an unauthorized person, thus he was also made an accused. After recording the statements of the witnesses the challan presented in the Court against the respondents under the aforesaid sections. The notice of accusation was put to them. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. At the end of the trial, the respondents were acquitted on the grounds that neither the complainant nor Balvinder Singh co- 3 passenger have supported the case of the prosecution and further there was no evidence that the accident in question had taken place on account of rash or negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1. In defence the respondents have examined DW1 Sh. Bilawar Singh, the Licensing Clerk from the office of R.T.O.Dehradun. According to him the driving license was issued in the name of respondent No.1 and he was authorized to drive the tractor which endorsement was made in the record of the R.T.O. PW1 Naresh Kumar complainant stated that he had gone to the doctor in Vohra hospital and saw Sultan Singh his maternal uncle there. He was in an injured condition and the doctor told him to sign the certain papers being his relatives. Then he went to inform the brother of the deceased Sultan Singh and did not return thereafter. On the next day i.e. 20th August, 1998 he was called by the police and did not enquire anything from him but made him to sign on some papers. PW2 Balvinder Singh has also not supported the case of the prosecution. He stated that when the tractor reached near Pipe Factory at Batamandi, on seeing the truck coming from the opposite side in a high speed, the tractor was taken to the extreme left side of the road and a drunkard who was pedestrian hit the tractor and fell down. He did not admit that Sultan Singh was also sitting in the tractor as alleged in the prosecution case. Except this that there is no other evidence on record, which in my considered opinion, is not enough to connect the acquittal into conviction. Thus the learned trial 4 court rightly acquitted the respondents taking note of all these facts which are borne out from the record, hence no interference. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. (Surinder Singh), Judge. April 23, 2009(R)