IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 668 of 2001. Date of decision: 24.10.2008. State of H.P. ... Appellant Versus Kishan Chand … Respondent Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mrs. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J. (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the judgment of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No. 3, Mandi, dated 26.7.2001, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the notice of accusation put up to him under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 I.P.C. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on receipt of an information that his mother Smt. Usha Devi had been hit by a scooterist, son of Usha Devi, namely, Jitender Kumar, informed the police who came to the spot and recorded the statement of Preeti daughter of Smt. Usha Devi. In the said statement, she alleged that she alongwith her mother Usha Devi was going to Pandoh Bazaar at 5.30PM and when they reached near the Transformer of the Electricity Department, a scooter came at a fast speed from Pandoh Bazaar and struck with her mother, who fell down on the road, suffered injuries on her head and arm. She 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - further alleged that on seeing the occurrence, one constable from 3rd Battalion came to the spot and got her mother admitted in the hospital and the complainant stated that she had noted down the scooter number. A case was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed before the learned trial Court who tried the respondent under Sections mentioned above leading to his acquittal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. The prosecution to substantiate their case had examined 11 witnesses in all and out of these witnesses, statements of three witnesses can be said to be most material, which deserve to be carefully appreciated. Coming to the statement of PW-1 Preeti, who as per report was accompanying her mother when they were going towards Pandoh Bazaar. She came up with the statement that she was coming back from temple alonwith her mother at 5.30PM and they were standing on the road side talking to one another. She stated that the scooter came from dam side at a fast speed, struck with her mother who fell on the road and suffered injuries on her head and arm and became unconscious. She stated that the scooter was being driven by the accused whom she knew earlier. She further stated that a constable of 3rd Battalion came there, gave water to her mother and also informed her brother about the occurrence. The police came and recorded her statement Ext. PW1/A. She further stated that the accused did not stop the scooter on the spot and ran away from the spot. In cross-examination, she admitted that at the place of occurrence many women and men were passing from the place. She further stated that she cannot say about the speed of the scooter but the vehicles go at a faster speed than the scooter was going. She further stated that the speed was normal. Her mother had struck - 3 - with the side of the scooter. She denied the suggestion that her mother was trying to cross the road and struck with the scooter. She further stated that she was little behind her mother at the time of accident, though in her examination-in-chief, she has stated that she was standing on the road alongwith her mother and were talking when the scooter came. PW-2 Smt. Usha Devi, mother of PW-1 Preeti, has not stated that they were standing on the road side after coming back from the temple but she had come up with the plea that she was going towards temple from her house and she had specifically stated that at that time she was alone meaning thereby PW-1 Preeti was not with her at the relevant time. In regard to Preeti, she had stated she was coming from the temple and was on the other side of the road, which is contradictory to the version given by PW-1 Preeti, her daughter and the main eye witness. She further stated that she had not seen the scooter since it came from behind and struck with her. She denied her knowledge in case the scooterist was going on his side. She denied the suggestion that she was trying to cross the road hurriedly and struck with the scooter. The third eye witness PW-3 Suresh Kumar had stated that the scooter struck with a woman, who fell down and the scooterist ran away. However, in further cross-examination, he has clearly stated that when he reached the spot, the scooterist had already left the place. He further stated that he had not seen the accident meaning thereby that he had not seen the scooterist striking with Usha Devi. The learned trial Court in holding that the prosecution had failed to prove their case had also observed that the complainant pW-1 Preeti had given the scooter No. as HID 5248, whereas PW-3 Suresh Kumar, the alleged eye witness had given the scooter No. as HID 4248. Both the witnesses had stated that the scooter was being driven by the - 4 - accused, but the possibility that PW-3 had seen the accident appeared to be remote since he stated that he had not seen the occurrence. Therefore, neither the identity of the accused stands established beyond reasonable doubt that he was driving the scooter nor the identity of the scooter involved in the accident also stands established since contradictory versions have come on record. All these three witnesses have not stated about the speed of the vehicle or the fact that the scooter was being driven rashly or negligently by the respondent. Keeping in view the evidence led, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court holding that the prosecution had failed to prove their case beyond any reasonable doubt cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the respondent shall stand discharged. (V.K. Ahuja), October 24, 2008 Judge (BSS)