JUDGMENT (Sanjay Karol, J.) (Oral) - The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment dated 6.1.2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Class-II Dharmshala, H.P. in case No. RBT No. 27-II/2000, titled as State of H.P. V. Chandu Lal, acquitting the accused of the charged offence. 2.As per the case of the prosecution on 7.5.1999, at about 11.30 a.m. Shri Pratap Chand, Hawker was going with his Cart when approximately one furlong away from a place called Master Chowk, Police Station, Dharmshala, a white Jeep bearing registration No. HP-39-9825 being driven by accused came in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite side and hit the Cart due to which the articles fell down and also hit the complainant as a result of which he sustained injuries on his right arm and other parts of the body. The injured was taken to the hospital at Dharmshala where his statement Ext. PW-1/A under Section 154 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Based on the same, FIR No. 121/99 dated 7.5.1999 Ext. PW-6/A was recorded with Police Station Dharmshala under Section 279 & 337 IPC and the police machinery was set into motion. The vehicle was impounded and mechanically examined vide seizure memos Ext. PW-5/A, Ext PW-5/B and report Ext. PW4/A. The injured was got medically examined through Doctor and the MLC Ext. PW-7/A and X-Ray Ext.PW-8/A were also taken by the police. 3.With the completion of the investigation, the challan was presented in the Court for trial. Notice of accusation was put to the accused for the offences under Section 279 & 337 IPC to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4.In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses and statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was also recorded. 5.Appreciating the entire material on record, the Court below came to conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and in the absence of any corroboration, more specifically for the reason that there has been improvement in the statement of the complainant, it could not be said the accused committed the charged offence beyond reasonable doubt. 6.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 7.From the sworn testimonies of Dr. Mrs. Neelam Mehta (PW-7) and Dr. Ramakant Mahajan (PW-8) and also the MLC Ext. PW-7/A and X-Ray from and report Ext. 6.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 7.From the sworn testimonies of Dr. Mrs. Neelam Mehta (PW-7) and Dr. Ramakant Mahajan (PW-8) and also the MLC Ext. PW-7/A and X-Ray from and report Ext. PW-8/A, it is clear that the complainant did suffer injuries on his body. The vehicle was got mechanically examined through Shri Gurbax Singh (PW-4) and as per his report Ext. PW-4/A the vehicle was found to be in good condition. Shri Shakti Chand (PW-3) and Shri Kehar Singh (PW-5) are formal witnesses. ASI Amar Singh (PW-6) has carried out the investigation and proved the fact that the vehicle was impounded and the documents were taken on record by him. 8.Smt. Gaitri Devi (PW-2) wife of complainant Partap Chand (PW-1) has only deposed that the complainant was brought to his house by the accused in the Jeep with which the alleged accident took place. She has clarified that she has not witnessed the occurrence of the accident as she was not present at the spot. 9.Simply because the complainant sustained injuries in the accident by itself would not be sufficient to hold the accused guilty of the charged offence. In order to ascertain the guilt of the accused, the statement of PW-1 needs to be examined. As per his sworn testimony, he sustained injuries in an accident which occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused. According to him, the vehicle which came from behind hit him as a result of which he fell down and suffered injuries on his right arm. In cross examination he has admitted that at the relevant time there was a Nurse siting in the Jeep and there are shops at the place of occurrence. Perusal of Ext. PW-1/A would however show that in his first report he stated that the vehicle had come from the opposite side and hit his Cart as a result of which his articles fell on the road and his arm was injured. Therefore, there is contradiction in his statement and it cannot be said with certainty as it with whose fault the incident took place. Further the statement is vague, speed at which the vehicle was coming was not specified. In what manner the acts were rash and negligent, were also not specified. Therefore, there is contradiction in his statement and it cannot be said with certainty as it with whose fault the incident took place. Further the statement is vague, speed at which the vehicle was coming was not specified. In what manner the acts were rash and negligent, were also not specified. 10.It has come on record that at the time of incident, there was a Nurse sitting in the vehicle. The accident took place in a broad day light where admittedly there were shops at the place of occurrence. Why no other independent witness was associated by the Investigating Agency or examined in the Court is not clear from the record. It is true that PW-1 had no prior enmity with the accused but however, in view of the fact that there are major improvement and contradiction in the version of PW-1 in the absence of corroboration, it cannot be held that prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 11.The accused has had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below, which has appreciated the evidence in its entirety. The vague and unspecific statement of the complainant, in my view, would not be sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. PW-2 has categorically stated that it was the accused who had brought the complainant home after the accident. This fact also strengthens the innocence of the accused. The accused has taken the defence that the complainant got frightened due to the sound of the vehicle and as a result he could not control his Cart and fell down and suffered injury. 12.It cannot be said with certainty that the accused had been driving the vehicle in question in a rash and negligent manner on public highway, as to endanger human life. 13.I have perused the material and see no reason to interfere with the judgment of the Court below. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds stands discharged. M.R.B. ——————-