STATE OF H.P. Vs. GOPI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has appealed against the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate acquitting the respondent, who was charged for offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case in brief is that rapat Ext. PW8/A was lodged on telephonic message received from Police Station, Theog. Thereafter PW8 ASI Sh. Om Raj along with Constable Mahinder Singh went to village Matiyana where they recorded the statement of complainant PW1 Sh. Neel Kamal. His statement Ex. PW1/A was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. where he stated that he was employed as Branch Manager in Central Bank of India at Khadrala. On that day, he was proceeding to his work place in a Maruti Car No. HP -03 -2456 which he was driving. When he reached near Nannimod at around 5.30 p.m., a Mahindra Jeep bearing No. HP -27 -0271 came from Shilaroo which was driven by the respondent, struck his car resulting in damage to the car of the complainant. The accused fled away from the scene of occurrence along with Jeep. F.I.R. Ext. PW8/A was recorded and a case was registered with the police.

(2.) NINE witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of its case. The case of the prosecution was ultimately dismissed by the learned trial Court giving benefit of doubt to the respondent. PW1 Sh. Neel Kamal stated that on the fateful day, he was driving his Car and when he reached near Nannimod, a Mahindra Jeep came from the opposite side struck his car and the driver of the Jeep fled away from the scene of the occurrence. He says that some people tried to trace out the accused but were un -successful. In his cross -examination he states that his vehicle at the relevant time was at the speed of 10/15 K.M. PW3 Sh. Ashok Sharma states that he could not say as to whether the Mahindra Jeep was driving at a fast speed or not. PW4 Sh. Nek Ram stated that he could not state about the numbers of the vehicles which were involved in the accident. The learned trial Court on the evidence holds that there is no doubt that it was the respondent who was driving the vehicle but there was no evidence on record to show that the vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The case of the prosecution is that PW3 Sh. Ashok Sharma and PW4 Sh. Nek Ram were going towards Shilaroo on foot from Matiyana and witnessed the incident. But, on analysis of this evidence, the learned trial Court found their presence on the spot is doubtful. There is also no evidence about the fact as to whether there was negligence on the part of the accused. In these circumstances, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused. It is urged by the learned Additional Advocate General that the material evidence on record has not been appreciated by the learned trial Court more especially the witnesses who had stated that the accident occurred at around 5.30 p.m. Even if the case of the State is considered on its face value, I do not find that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt for the reason that there is no evidence that the Jeep was being driven in rash and negligent manner. There is, thus, no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the respondent shall stand discharged.