Appellate courts should not disturb acquittal if trial court's view is reasonable and possible on evidence, despite contradictions in prosecution witnesses and support for defence version from site plan and skid marks disproving negligence.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28.03.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.1, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Trial Court) vide which the respondent (accused before learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police presented a challan before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC. It was asserted that the informant, Sanjogata Chaudhary (PW1), was standing outside her home with her nephew Ajay Kumar (PW2). A car bearing registration No. PB-35J-1344 came from Kandwal towards Bhadroa at about 3:15 pm at a high speed and hit Ajay Kumar (PW2). The car dragged Ajay Kumar (PW2) for some distance. The accused, Saroj Sharma, was driving the car. Jyoti (PW7) was sitting in the front seat of the car. Ajay Kumar (PW2) sustained injuries, and he was taken in the same car to Pathankot. The accident occurred due to the negligence of the accused and the high speed of the car. HC Kulwinder Singh (PW10) and Constable Ajay Kumar were going towards Bhadroa for traffic checking. They found that many people had gathered on the spot. Sanjogata Chaudhary (PW1) made a statement (Ext.PW1/A) which was sent to the Police Station where FIR (Ext.PW8/A) was registered. HC Kulwinder Singh (PW10) investigated the matter. Rajinder Sohga (PW3) took the photographs (Ext.P1 to P5) whose negatives are Ext.P6 to Ext. P10. HC Kulwinder (PW10) prepared the site plan (Ext.PW10/A). He seized the vehicle bearing registration No. PB-35J-1344, along with documents vide memo (Ext.PW4/A). The accused produced her driving license (Ext.A1), which was seized vide memo (Ext.PW9/A). The mechanical examination of the vehicle was conducted, and a report (Ext.PA) was issued mentioning that there was no defect in the vehicle that could have led to the accident. Treatment summary of Ajay Kumar, MRI scan, follow- up treatment, and scanning report were taken into possession. The statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court.

3. The learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to put the notice of accusation to the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC, to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses to prove its case. Sanjogata (PW1) is the informant/eye witness. Ajay Kumar (PW2) is the victim. Rajinder Sohga (PW3) took the photographs. Sanjay Kumar (PW4), Satpal (PW5), Darbara Singh (PW6) and Jyoti (PW7) are the eyewitnesses, but they did not support the prosecution’s case. HC Bir Singh (PW8) signed the FIR. HC Ram Krishan (PW9) is the witness to the recovery of a driving license. HC Kulwinder (PW10) investigated the matter.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., admitted that the police had seized the car bearing registration No. PB-