STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. GURMAIL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has felt aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Cr. Appeal No. 17 -D/2001, decided on 17.5.2004, whereby the judgment of conviction and sentence, passed by the learned trial Court, for the offence punishable under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code was set -aside, consequently the Respondent was acquitted.

(2.) SHRI A.K. Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General for the Appellant -State vehemently argued that the learned first Appellate Court did not take into account the version of the eye witness, which proved the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. He led me through the evidence on record and submitted that the approach of the learned first Appellate Court in appreciating the evidence was faulty, which caused miscarriage of justice.

(3.) PRECISELY , the case of the prosecution is that on 16.3.1999, at about 1.50 p.m., Respondent was driving a private Bus bearing registration No. HP -39 -5449, on a public highway and hit the scooterist at the place known as Bani with the result, scooterist alongwith pillion rider sustained the fractures of their legs.