JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. The State has come in appeal against the judgment, dated 11th November, 2005, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., in Criminal Case No. 37/2 of 2003/02, whereby the respondent, who was charged with and tried for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, has been acquitted. 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nut shell, is that in the morning of 9th May, 2002, complainant, Dr. R.K. Baria (PW6) was coming from Chandigarh towards Paonta Sahib in maruti car bearing registration No. HP-18A-0110. When the complainant reached at place Khajurna near Dhimki Temple, accused came from the side of Paonta Sahib in a truck bearing registration No. HP-10-2387 in a very high speed. He struck the same against the car of the complainant. The complainant has stopped his car on the left side of the road on seeing the offending vehicle coming in excessive speed. He suffered injuries on his person. The accused ran away from the spot. 3. On the basis of the complaint, Ex. PW6/A, made by the complainant (PW6) , FIR, Ex. PW9/A, was registered against the accused. The complainant (PW6) was got medically examined by PW4, Dr. Sanjeev Kapoor. He issued MLC, Ex. PW4/B. The offending truck was also examined by PW5, HC Amar Singh. He issued his report, Ex. PW5/ B. The police, after completing the investigation, has put up the challan. 4. The prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses. The accused was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He denied having committed the offence and claimed to be innocent. The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class acquitted the accused on 11th November, 2005. Hence, this appeal. 5. Mr. Pramod Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused. 6. Mr. R.R. Rahi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-accused, has supported the judgment of acquittal, dated 11th November, 2005. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 8. PW1, Shri Shakun Kumar, has deposed that he is an agriculturist by profession. According to him, on 09.05.2002, at about 8.30/8.45 a.m., he was present in his house, which is just at a distance of 10-12 meters from the road. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 8. PW1, Shri Shakun Kumar, has deposed that he is an agriculturist by profession. According to him, on 09.05.2002, at about 8.30/8.45 a.m., he was present in his house, which is just at a distance of 10-12 meters from the road. He heard the noise of collision of two vehicles. When he came on the spot, he saw one maruti car bearing registration No. HP-18A-0110 overturned. One person was buried under the car. He, with the help of his father, brother, a neighbour and one driver rescued the driver of the car. He came to know later that the injured was Dr. R.K. Baria. 9. PW2, Shri Mustaq Mohammad, is the forest guard. He has only intercepted the truck. 10. PW4, Dr. Sanjeev Kapoor, has examined the complainant (PW6), Dr. R.K. Baria. He has issued the MLC, Ex. PW4/B. As per the MLC, Ex. PW4/B, injuries No. 2 and 3 were grievous in nature and injuries No. 1 and 4 were simple in nature. 11. PW5, HC Amar Singh, has technically examined the truck. He has issued the report, Ex. PW5/B. It has come in his cross-examination that he has checked the steering system of the truck and there was some fault. 12. PW6, Dr. R.K. Baria, is the complainant. According to him, he was driving maruti car bearing registration No. HP-18A-0110 from Chandigarh towards Paonta Sahib. He was alone in the car. When he reached Khajurna bridge near Dhimki Temple, a truck came from the side of Paonta Sahib bearing registration No. HP-10-2387 at excessive speed. He has deposed that the truck was coming right in the middle of the road. He turned his car towards the left. When he saw that the truck was still heading towards him, he turned the car again towards the left side and applied brakes. However, the accused struck his truck against the car. He, in his cross-examination, has admitted that he did not know who was driving the truck. He has also admitted that there was a curve at a distance of 7080 meters from the place of incident. 13. PW7, Shri Surender Singh, is the owner of the truck. He has specifically deposed that he has deployed the accused as a driver. 14. Investigation, in the present case, was carried out by PW9, Bhag Mal. He has also admitted that there was a curve at a distance of 7080 meters from the place of incident. 13. PW7, Shri Surender Singh, is the owner of the truck. He has specifically deposed that he has deployed the accused as a driver. 14. Investigation, in the present case, was carried out by PW9, Bhag Mal. He has prepared the site map, Ex. PW9/C. The truck was also taken into possession and the site map was prepared of this spot, which is Ex. PW9/G. He has also taken photographs, Ex. PA to PG, with negatives, Ex. PH to PN. 15. There is no eye witness to the manner in which the accident has taken place. PW1 has reached the spot after the accident has taken place. According to him, his father, brother, a neighbour and one driver were present on the spot. However, these persons have not been examined. 16. The complainant (PW6), Dr. R.K. Baria, has sustained two grievous injuries and the remaining injuries were simple in nature. It has come in the statement of PW5, HC Amar Singh, that there was some defect in the steering of the truck bearing registration No. HP-10-2387, being driven by the accused. Even the complainant himself has only deposed that the truck was coming at a higher speed. He has nowhere stated that the truck was being driven in a rash or negligent manner by the driver on a public way. 17. PW9, Bhag Mal, has prepared the site map, Ex. PW9/C. According to the site map, Ex. PW9/C, the width of Nahan Paonta Sahib road at the place of accident is 18 feet. The accident has been shown to have taken place at Mark "B". The accident, as per Ex. PW9/C has happened almost in the middle of the road. It has come, as noticed above, in the statement of the complainant (PW6), Dr. R.K. Baria, that he saw the vehicle coming at a higher speed. He turned his car towards the left and when he saw that still the truck was approaching towards his car, he turned his car again to the left side and applied the brakes. It is, thus, proved that the complainant (PW6) was also driving the car at an excessive speed, that too on the wrong side. He turned his car towards the left and when he saw that still the truck was approaching towards his car, he turned his car again to the left side and applied the brakes. It is, thus, proved that the complainant (PW6) was also driving the car at an excessive speed, that too on the wrong side. In case the complainant has been driving his car on a normal speed, he could have avoided the accident. If he had been driving on the left side and had turned his car again on the left side, the accident could have been avoided. The accident has happened right in the middle of the road. It is also clear from the spot map, Ex. PW9/C, that the skid marks in respect of the offending truck are 38 feet and the skid marks of the car are 20 feet. 18. The accident has taken place on a busy road. However, the prosecution has not cited any independent witness to prove how the accident has taken place. Even the complainant (PW6) has not testified what was the approximate speed of the truck. There was a curve at a distance of about 7080 meters from the place where the accident has taken place. PW5, HC Amar Singh, has deposed that the steering of the truck was also defective. 19. Accordingly, the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, this Court will not interfere with the judgment of the learned trial Court. 20. Accordingly, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. Bail bonds are ordered to be discharged.