JUDGMENT :

The present appeal has been maintained by the appellant/State of Himachal Pradesh, laying challenge to judgment dated 31.01.2008, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (4) Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., in Criminal Case No. 30/2 of 2005/04, whereby the respondent/accused (hereinafter referred to as “the accused”) was acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”).

2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present case are that on 01.09.2004, HC Jaswant Singh alongwith HC Baldev Singh went to lift, Shimla, where one accident was reported and recorded the statement of the complainant. The complainant in his statement has stated that he is posted in traffic staff and his duty is at lift point. On 01.09.2004 at about 10:45 A.M., he was near police Gumti at lift, Shimla in connection with his personal work, where one HRTC bus bearing sign board “Khatnol-Shimla” had stopped and passengers started deboarding the bus. The driver had parked the bus on one side. When driver started the bus, one person aged about 35-40 years, had come under the rear tyre of the bus and when he went closer, he found that both the rear tyres of bus, bearing No. HP-07-3261 had crossed over the legs and abdomen of the injured. Thereafter, the injured was shifted to IGMC, Shimla in a taxi. As per the complainant, the accident was a result of fault on the part of the driver. The statement after endorsement was sent to the police station, on the basis of which, FIR No. 269/04 was registered. Police prepared the site plan and the bus No. HP-07-3261 was taken into possession. The injured Jeet Ram was medically examined at IGMC Shimla and his MLC was procured. However, later on he succumbed to the injuries at IGMC, Shimla. After completion of investigation, police presented challan in the learned Trial Court.

3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as twenty witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he pleaded not guilty. However, the accused did not lead any evidence in his defence.

4. The learned Trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 31.01.2008, acquitted the accused for the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of IPC, hence the present appeal.

5. The learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its right and true perspective and the accused has wrongly been acquitted and after re-appreciating the evidence the accused be convicted, as the prosecution has proved its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt and there is nothing on record to prove rash and negligent driving of the accused, as no witness has supported the prosecution case. He has further argued that the learned trial Court has correctly appreciated the material, which has come on record and the judgment of acquittal needs no interference and the appeal be dismissed.

7. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, I have gone through the record carefully.

8. In the case at hand, the statements of PW2 Complainant Constable Devki Nandan, PW3 Sarwan Kumar, PW7 Het Ram and PW11, Ramesh Chand are very important since at the time of accident they were present on the spot. Besides them, statements of PW15 Dr. Yuvi Tayagi, who conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased and PW20, Dr. Ramesh Chand, who had medically examined the deceased, are also required to be gone through.

9. The complainant, Constable Devki Nandan has appeared in the witness box as PW2 and deposed that in the year 2004, at 10:45 A.M., he was at main gate near lift. There was traffic on road. He heard cries that some person had come under the bus. He then saw that bus No. HP-07-3261, ha