STATE OF H.P. Vs. SAT PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment of acquittal recorded by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghumarwin dated 19.4.1999, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the charges framed under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the I.P.C.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that on 17.6.1995 at 2.15 a.m. a report was lodged with the police by Smt.Durgi Devi that on the previous day on 16.6.1995 at about 7 p.m. she was going to the water tap to take water along with her canny, a scooter came at a fast speed which was being driven negligently and it struck with her. She fell on the road and suffered injuries on her both legs. On this report, a case was registered and after investigation the challan was filed. The respondent was tried by the learned trial court for the aforesaid sections, which resulted in acquittal, hence this appeal.

(3.) ON a perusal of the evidence led by the prosecution it is clear that the complainant in her statement as PW-1 has stated that the scooter struck with her when she was going to take water and that the accident has taken place. The scooter was going at a fast speed and due to his negligence the accident took place. In her cross-examination she has stated that she cannot identify the accused. The only other eyewitness stated to be present there at that time Suram Singh (PW-2) has also stated that the scooter came at a fast speed and struck against the complainant. In cross-examination he has stated that he cannot say about the scooter number involved in the accident. He clearly stated that none else was present there on the spot at the time of the accident and he ruled out the presence of another witness examined subsequently namely Rameshwar(PW-4).