STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. MEHAR CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has challenged the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court in Crl. Case No. 136 -II/99 on 15.6.2004, for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

(2.) IN short, the prosecution story is that on 6.5.99, at about 7.45 p.m., when it had gone slightly dark, the Respondent came on Scooter No. HP -40 -1630 at a public highway at village Birta, and is alleged to have hit PW3 Magha Devi while carrying a load of grass on her head. She fell down and sustained injuries. At that time, she was accompanied by her son PW1 Ravinder Kumar and daughters PW1 Veena Devi and Sharda Devi (not examined).

(3.) ON reappraisal of the evidence on record, it is absolutely clear that the prosecution has failed to prove the rash and negligent act of driving by the Respondent at the relevant time. According to PW3 Magha Devi, PW1 Ravinder Kumar, her son and PW2 Veena Devi, her daughter, the Scooter in question was being driven by the Respondent in high speed and the injured (PW3) was standing on the kacha portion of the road with a head load of grass and hit her, whereas, the stand taken by the Respondent is that he was though driving the Scooter at the relevant time, but suddenly, PW3 Magha Devi came on the road. He blew the horn and further slowed down his scooter and applied the brakes, but even despite that he hit his Scooter. His defense stands probablised by the site plan Ext.PW5/B, prepared by the Investigating Officer, which shows that the place of accident was the middle of the road and not the kacha portion of the road, as projected by the prosecution witnesses.