STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. VIJAY PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainant Aman Dogra (PW-2) in his statement recorded under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') Ex.PW-2/A, on the basis of which formal FIR Ex.PW-7/A came to be registered against the respondent-accused (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') , alleged that on 30th April, 2010, at around 7.30 P.M. he, after his office hours, was going to his house in his car bearing No.HP-52A-3599. He alleged that when he reached near B.C.S. (PNB Curve) , accused, who was under the influence of liquor, came driving vehicle bearing No.HP- 52A-0262 from Sector-2 side and hit a person namely; Kanhya Bihari. As per complainant, accused also hit Innova vehicle bearing No.HP-68AT-0837 and vehicle No.HP-52A3599 of the complainant, as a consequence of which front portion belonging to the vehicle of complainant got damaged. After completion of investigation, on the basis of aforesaid information furnished by complainant PW-2, FIR detailed hereinabove came to be lodged against the accused. After completion of investigation, police presented challan in the competent Court of law i.e. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Shimla, who, being satisfied that prima facie case exists against the accused, put him notice of accusation for having committed offence punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'MV Act') to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(2.) Prosecution, with a view to prove its case, examined as many as 10 prosecution witnesses, whereas accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the incriminating evidence adduced on record against him and claimed himself to be innocent by stating that after the accident, one of the owner of car bearing No.HP-3599 demanded Rs.one lac from him. He further stated that he was not having money and on the next day, the vehicle owner demanded for Rs.10, 000/- from him, which he gave to him and thereafter, they entered into a compromise in D.C. Office. He further stated that car owner assured him that he would not register any case against him. Subsequently, he came to know that case stands registered against him. He also stated that he was having 10 years experience of driving and was not drunk at the time of occurrence. Accused took a defence that at the time of accident, vehicle in question was being driven by one Mohinder Harish and he had reached on the spot later on. Learned trial Court, on the basis of evidence adduced on record by the prosecution, held the accused not guilty of having committed offence punishable under Sections 279 and 337 IPC and Section 185 of the MV Act and accordingly, acquitted him of the notice of accusation put to him.

(3.) In the aforesaid background, appellant-State has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein conviction of respondent-accused for having committed offence punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the IPC and Section 185 of the MV Act, after setting aside the judgment of acquittal recorded by the Court below.