STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. NITIN SETHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent was acquitted by the learned trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, hence the present appeal by the State.

(2.) IN short, the prosecution story is that on 30.10.2006, the respondent was going uphill from Kala- Amb to Nahan side, in his Santro-car bearing registration No.CH-03-9097. When he reached near Sainwala, it is alleged that the respondent was overtaking a scooterist on a curve, thus he left his own side and came to the right side of the road. IN the meantime, PW1 Sandeep Parmar came on his motor-cycle No.HP-18-5678 from the opposite side with pillion-rider PW3 Manoj Gautam. The right-side of Santro-car hit the motorcyclist with the result the motorcycle fell on the road thereby causing grievous injuries to PW3 Manoj Gautam. The respondent stopped his car, took the injured in his car to District Hospital, Nahan for treatment, where he was attended upon by PW9 Dr. A.K. Sethi. On the medical examination of Manoj Gautam, he observed a bleeding injury and tenderness on his right-leg, thus advised for X-ray. The Medico-Legal Certificate is Ext.PW9/A. PW11 Dr. D.D. Sharma, Radiologist on the perusal of the X-ray found fracture of both bones of right-leg and gave his opinion Ext.PW11/B.

(3.) SHRI A.K. Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General, vehemently argued that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court for acquitting the respondent are wrong and not borne out from the record. If the evidence on record is appreciated in its right perspective, there are grounds to convert the acquittal into conviction. He further ventilated that in para 31 of its judgment, the learned trial Court wrongly made the mention that PW2 Najakat Khan had turned hostile to the prosecution and that Vishal Gaur was a material witness who was given-up. It is also ventilated that Gaurav Gupta was rightly given-up by the prosecution being a colleague of the respondent, who would not have supported the prosecution case. It is further ventilated that the learned trial Court did not give the due consideration to the witnesses which they deserved.