STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-State of Himachal Pradesh, laying challenge to judgment, dated 20.11.2007, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P., in Criminal Case No. 115/2 of 2004, whereby the accused/respondent (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") was acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

(2.) Succinctly, the facts giving rise to the present appeal, as per the prosecution, are that on 10.09.2004, A.S.I. Parwal Singh received telephonic information that an accident has taken place at Waknaghat, upon which, A.S.I, Parwal Singh alongwith other Police officials visited the spot and recorded the statement of the complainant. The complainant in his statement stated that he is working as driver in truck (swaraj mazda) bearing registration No. HP-11B-0655 for the last ten years and on 09.09.2004, he alongwith Manmohan Singh (Second driver of the truck) was going from Baghi Tikkar towards Delhi, carrying 250 boxes of apples and at about 12.45 a.m. (midnight), when they reached at Waknaghat, a mahindra max pick-up, coming from Solan side in rash and negligent manner and in wrong side, struck with their truck. Due to which, both the vehicles were got damaged and Manmohan Singh, who was driving the truck at that time, sustained injuries on his person. The vehicle was being driven by Pradeep Kumar and one person was also sitting in the vehicle and after the accident the accused ran away from the spot. On the basis of statement of the complainant case, under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act was registered against the accused. Spot map was prepared and photographs were obtained. Both the vehicles were taken into possession alongwith its documents and memos were prepared. Accused Pradeep Kumar and injured Manmohan Singh alongwith Suman Kumar were medically examined and their MLCs were procured. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court.

(3.) The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as ten witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Sec. 313 Crimial P.C. wherein he denied the prosecution case and claimed innocence. The accused did not lead any defence in his favour.