STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. KAMAL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant Criminal Appeal having been filed by the appellant-State, is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 24.4.2009, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh in Criminal case No. 391-I/2003/164-II/2004, whereby learned trial Court held respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') not guilty of having committed of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC and accordingly acquitted him.

(2.) In nutshell, the case of the prosecution as emerge from the record is that on 14.8.2003, at around 10:20 A.M, Nitin Sharma was riding on cycle and complainant namely, Shruti Vaid was going on foot and when they reached near 'Robin Cinema Chowk', at Nehran Rukhar, one Maruti car bearing registration No. HP-19-8298 being driven by the accused came from Dhaliara side in a high speed and hit cycle of Nitin Sharma from the back side, as a consequence of which, he fell down on the road and sustained serious injuries. The driver of the offending car stopped the vehicle at a distance of 50-60 feet and many people came on the spot. The accident in question allegedly occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the accused. The matter was reported to the police by the complainant, Shruti Vaid vide her statement made under Section 154 Cr.P.C., Ex.PW11/B, on the basis of which, formal FIR Ex.PW11/C came to be registered against the accused. After completion of the investigation, police presented the challan in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, who being satisfied that a primafacie case exists against the accused, put notice of accusation to him for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 279 and 337 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) Prosecution with a view to prove its case examined as many as thirteen witnesses, whereas accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the case of the prosecution in toto. However, he did not lead any evidence in his defence.