IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 171 of 2002. Date of decision: 16.12.2008 State of H.P. ... Appellant Versus Sukhvinder Singh @ Kukki … 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. N.K. Thakur, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J. (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amb, District Una, dated 29.11.2001, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the notice of accusations put up to him under Sections 279, 304-A I.P.C. and 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a statement was made by one Sartaj Singh under Section 154 Cr.P.C. before a Police Officer Brahm Dass on 9.3.2001, at about 2.00P.M. In his statement, complainant Sartaj Singh alleged that at about 1.30 P.M. he alongwith his wife were going towards Gurdwara and a truck came from the other side at a fast speed and hit his wife, who was walking on katcha portion of the road. His wife fell down, suffered injuries and the 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - truck crushed her under the tires and Smt. Gita Devi, his wife died at the spot. On this statement Ext. PA, a case was registered by the police and after investigation, the challan was filed before the learned trial Court, who tried the respondent leading to his acquittal. I have heard Mrs. Shubh Mahajan, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the State and Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate, for the respondent and have gone through the record. On a perusal of the record of the case, it is clear that the prosecution has examined 12 witnesses to substantiate their case. Statements of 5 witnesses can be said to be material, who are eye witnesses in this case. PW-1 Sartaj Singh, complainant, has stated that the truck was coming at a fast speed, which hit his wife, who died. He further stated that the truck was coming from the opposite side and his wife was walking on the katcha portion of the road. From his statement it is not clear that the truck was coming from the other side and hit his wife on the other side or on which side of the road he and his wife were going at the time of accident. He simply used the words “fast speed” but did not mention the speed of the truck at the relevant time. PW-2 Prittam Chand when examined, turned hostile and stated that Gita Devi did not die due to the negligence of the truck driver. In cross- examination, he denied the suggestion that Gita Devi had struck with the truck and died. He further stated that the truck had struck with Gita Devi who was going on her own side. He also stated that the truck was going at a slow speed. In further cross-examination, he stated that Gita Devi died due to the negligence of the tractor and tanker driver and they had told this fact to the police at the spot and the tractor’s driver had run away from the spot. - 3 - PW-3 Gurdial Singh, another eye witness, was declared hostile and did not support the prosecution story. He stated that the accident did not take place due to fast speed or negligence of the respondent. In cross-examination, he stated that the accident took place due to the negligence of the tractor and tanker driver and they had told this fact to the police also and the tractor’s driver ran away from the spot. It was suggested to all the witnesses that Gita Devi had tried to cross the road while going behind a tanker and she struck with the truck, which suggestion was denied by these witnesses. PW-4 Shamsher Singh, another eye witness and from the village of the complainant, has stated that when they were going on the katcha portion of the road, a truck came from the other side and Smt. Gita died as a result of the negligence of the truck driver. He did not state that the truck had struck Gita Devi who was going on her own or other side of the road, though, he stated that they were going on their side. He did not state that the accident took place due to rash or negligent driving of the respondent and simply used the words “negligence of the respondent”. In cross-examination, he has stated that he had mentioned that the truck was coming from the opposite side and he was confronted with his statement Mark - C, wherein it was not so recorded. A similar suggestion was put to him that while crossing the tanker, Gita struck with the truck, which was denied by this witness. PW-12 Atma Singh has stated that they were going on their side and a truck came and struck with Gita Devi who died at the spot. He simply stated that the accident took place due to negligence of the respondent. In his cross-examination, he stated that Gita Devi was going ahead of him and he had not seen the driver of the truck at the time of the accident. He further admitted that the said truck was going - 4 - at a slow speed since the people were going to pay obeisance and were also coming back. He stated that the police did not enquire from him about the speed of the truck From the above discussion of the evidence, there is nothing specific on record to hold as to what was the speed of the truck or the manner in which the accident took place. The mere fact that a woman had died in an accident with the truck is not sufficient to hold that an inference can be drawn that this happened due to rash or negligent driving of the truck driver, until and unless some evidence is there to prove the offence, for which there is no specific evidence on record. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the respondent 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 accordingly. Bail bonds furnished by the respondent shall stand discharged forthwith. (V.K. Ahuja), December 16, 2008 Judge (BSS) - 5 -