Judgment : Rajiv Sharma, J. This appeal is instituted against Judgment dated 29.9.2008 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh in Sessions Trial No. 6-S/7 of 2008, whereby appellant-accused (hereinafter referred to as ‘accused’ for convenience sake), who was charged with and tried for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, has been acquitted. 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that at about 7.30 pm, on 22.12.2007, one Rajbeer was brought to IGMC for medical treatment. Rohit, Shashi Kant, Nitin and Sandeep had gone there. Rajbeer was given medical treatment. Nitin, Rajbeer and others were taken on motor cycle and dropped at Dhalli. In the meantime, Rohit, Shashi and Sandeep were going on motor cycle . The motorcycle was being driven by Sandeep. While they were on their way, a vehicle came from opposite side. It brushed with the motorcycle. A quarrel took place with the van driver. Then they went towards Sanjauli. They parked their motor cycle at a short distance beyond the rain shelter near toilet at Sanjauli Chowk. Same van driven by the accused arrived at the Chowk. The driver started abusing them. He threatened them that he would run them over. Accused with the said intention drove the van towards them. Sandeep was run over and dragged with the vehicle upto 500 meters. Police was informed. Statement of PW-1 was recorded under Section 154 CrPC. FIR was registered. Motor cycle was taken into possession alongwith van. Both the vehicles were got examined. FSL report was received. Challan was put in the Court after completing all the codal formalities. 3. Prosecution has examined as many as 20 witnesses to prove its case against the accused. Accused was also examined under Section 313 CrPC. He pleaded innocence. Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as noticed above. Hence, this appeal. 4. Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused. 5. Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate, has supported the judgment of acquittal dated 29.9.2008. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record carefully. 7. PW-1 Rohit deposed that he had gone to IGMC with Rajbeer and thereafter, Nitin, Shashi Kant and Sandeep also came. Rajbeer was provided medical treatment. He, Shashi Kant and Sandeep went towards Dhalli. Motorcycle was being driven by Sandeep. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record carefully. 7. PW-1 Rohit deposed that he had gone to IGMC with Rajbeer and thereafter, Nitin, Shashi Kant and Sandeep also came. Rajbeer was provided medical treatment. He, Shashi Kant and Sandeep went towards Dhalli. Motorcycle was being driven by Sandeep. When their motorcycle reached near printing press Mor, a van came towards them on wrong side from the opposite site. Sandeep hurled abuses at the van driver and van driver stopped his vehicle and got down. A quarrel took place between them. They hit the accused. Thereafter they come on motorcycle to Sanjauli and they parked the bike at Sanjauli rain shelter. In the meanwhile, van came towards them. It was 9.20-9.25 pm. Accused got down from the vehicle with a rod in his hand. He parked the vehicle. A quarrel took place between them. They took him towards the vehicle and made him to sit in the van. They went towards their bike. They had not yet reached their bike and were standing in the rain shelter and talking to each other. Accused came to the spot and hit Sandeep with his vehicle. Sandeep was hit with front portion of the vehicle. He fell down. His body came underneath the vehicle but the tyres did not run over him. However, he was dragged to about 400-500 meters’ distance. They ran after the van shouting ‘stop the van’ but the driver did not stop the van. They found the body of Sandeep on the road about 50 meters from the police post Sanjauli. They tried to stop the vehicles to move Sandeep to hospital but nobody stopped. He informed the police. Police came to the spot and took the injured to the hospital. they took him to the hospital in van. Doctor declared him brought dead. His statement was recorded by the police vide Ext. PW-1/A. Police inspected the place from Chowk to the spot where body was lying. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that there were shops and residential houses between Sanjauli Chowk and Sanjauli Police post. There is always rush but not during night time. When they parked bike at Sanjauli, 2-3 shops were open at that time. There are 3-4 shops of Halwai at Chowk and a few shops of Panwaris. Some people were moving at the Chowk. There is always rush but not during night time. When they parked bike at Sanjauli, 2-3 shops were open at that time. There are 3-4 shops of Halwai at Chowk and a few shops of Panwaris. Some people were moving at the Chowk. At the Printing Press, the van did not collide with their motorcycle however, came very close to their motorcycle. 8. PW-2 Shashi Kant corroborated the statement of PW-1 Rohit. According to him also, accused came in his vehicle from IGMC side and firstly it hit Sandeep and dragged him to a distance of about 400-500 meters. He also deposed in his cross-examination that there were some other persons present at the Chowk. 2-3 shops at Chowk were also open. Vehicles were also coming and going. There are about 3-4 shops of Halwais and some shops of Panwaris and some Dhaba. He admitted that between van and road, gap is not sufficient for a healthy person to come under it. 9. PW-3 Nitin Nathan deposed that Rajbeer was his friend. He had sustained injury in his hand. He had gone to IGMC for treatment. He, Shashi Kant and Sandeep also had gone to the hospital on 22.12.2007. Rajbeer and Rohit were also present. Rajbeer was given medical treatment. Shashi dropped him and Rajbeer at their houses and came back to IGMC with motorcycle. He received a telephonic call at about 9.30-9.45 pm from Rohit He was told that Sandeep had been hit by a van and that he was being taken to hospital. 10. PW-4 Sanjeev Kumar deposed that he and Sandeep Sood went to the police station on 24.12.2007. A Maruti van was standing in the compound and a team of forensic science experts came at the spot and they took samples from the spot. Broken pieces of glass of van were also taken into possession. Rear bumper of van was also taken into possession. 11. PW-5 Mata Parsad deposed that between 9-10 pm, he was present in his shop. He was attending to customers. He heard the sound of ‘Kharaak’ and then he noticed a body lying on the road. 12. PW-6 Dr. Gian Thakur has proved report Ext. PW- 6/A. 13. PW-7 Sanjeev Kumar has taken photographs on the night intervening 22 and 23.12.2007. 14. The case property was deposited with HHC Subhash Chand. He sent the same to the FSL Junga. 15. He heard the sound of ‘Kharaak’ and then he noticed a body lying on the road. 12. PW-6 Dr. Gian Thakur has proved report Ext. PW- 6/A. 13. PW-7 Sanjeev Kumar has taken photographs on the night intervening 22 and 23.12.2007. 14. The case property was deposited with HHC Subhash Chand. He sent the same to the FSL Junga. 15. PW-9 Tek Chand and PW-10 Govind Ram are formal witnesses. 16. PW-11 HC Sanjeev Kumar has examined the motorcycle and van involved in the accident. He proved his report Ext. PW-11/A. He admitted in his cross-examination that extra guard was fixed in the front of the van. He also admitted that gap between body of van and road is almost 6 inches. 17. PW-12 Dr. Ajay Kumar Sehgal proved report Ext. PW-12/A. In his examination-in-chief, he admitted that three hair were found stuck in middle portion of the back bumper. Blood was also detected in traces in lower portion of the back bumper. Same was lifted with the help of cotton and handed over to the IO. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that there was no blood stain on the front site of the vehicle except right side of bumper. There was no blood on the vehicle except that some traces of blood were found in the vehicle near rear bumper. 18. PW-13 Bhagat Ram, PW-14 Lata, PW-15 Kuldeep Singh and PW-16 P.D. Kashyap are formal witnesses. 19. PW-17 Dr. H.S. Sekhon has conducted post mortem on the dead body. He has proved post-mortem report Ext. PW- 17/A. According to his opinion, deceased died as a result of ante mortem head injury causing gross laceration of brain and haemorrhagic shock due to blunt trauma of chest and abdomen. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that deceased, as per report of chemical examiner, had consumed alcohol. Ethyl Alcohol in blood was 184.22 mg percent. He also admitted that if a person is dragged for 400 meters under a van, in that eventuality injuries/lacerations/contusions would be more on the entire body. He also admitted that if a person is dragged with van with face downwards, signs of drag would be present on entire length of body and vice versa. He also admitted that if a person is dragged for 400 meters under a van, in that eventuality injuries/lacerations/contusions would be more on the entire body. He also admitted that if a person is dragged with van with face downwards, signs of drag would be present on entire length of body and vice versa. He also admitted that if a person while running behind in a moving vehicle suddenly falls on the rear bumper and is dragged for a short distance of 10-15 meters, these types of injuries as stated in the post-mortem report would be present on the person. According to him, if a person is dragged under a vehicle, there should have been traces of blood on the vehicle. 20. PW-18 ASI Sato Kumar deposed that he accompanied by HC Mohan Lal and Constable Lalit Kumar. 21. PW-19 Surinder Pal investigated the matter. He collected broken pieces of glass of the vehicle vide Ext. PW-1/B. Muffler was taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW-1/C. Muffler is Ext. P2. Blood was also taken into possession alongwith Coal tar and grit vide Ext. PW-1/D. post-mortem of the body was got conducted. 22. PW-20 Lalit is a formal witness. 23. According to first version recorded in Ext. PW-1/A, under Section 154 CrPC, van has struck the motor cycle of the accused and thereafter they have parked motor cycle near rain shelter and it was at about 9.30 pm, accused came on the spot and started abusing them and told them that he would crush them under the van. He tried to run over them Shashi Kant and he escaped. The van ran over deceased. However, according to the statement of PW-1, van did not collide with their motor cycle but it came close to it. He specifically deposed that the accused alighted from the van and advanced towards them at Sanjauli near rain shelter. However, it is no so stated in Ext. PW-1/A. PW- 1 Rohit and PW-2 Shashi Kant have categorically admitted that there were many shops open and there was vehicular traffic on the road, however, neither shopkeepers nor passers-by were associated during investigation. PW-2 has admitted in his crossexamination that between the body of the van and road, space was not sufficient for a healthy person to come underneath it. Moreover, PW-17 HS Sekhon has stated in his cross-examination that deceased was a well built person. PW-2 has admitted in his crossexamination that between the body of the van and road, space was not sufficient for a healthy person to come underneath it. Moreover, PW-17 HS Sekhon has stated in his cross-examination that deceased was a well built person. Case of the prosecution is that deceased was struck by the accused and dragged to a distance of more than 400 meters. However, the injuries found on the body of the deceased did not support this version. PW-17, in his cross-examination, has admitted that if a person is dragged approximately to a distance of 400 meters, in that event, injuries/ lacerations/ contusions due to drag would be more on the entire body. 24. PW-12 Ajay Kumar Sehgal has proved Ext. PW-12/A. According to him, three black hair strands were fond stuck in the middle portion of the rear bumper. There was no blood in the vehicle except some traces of blood were found on the vehicle near rear bumper. There was no blood on the vehicle on the front side. Case of the prosecution is that deceased was hit from the front side of the van and body was dragged to a distance of more than 400 meters. In that eventuality, blood was bound to be present on the front portion of the vehicle. Blood was found only near rear bumper. Gap between the van and the road was only 6 inches and it is not believable that a healthy person could be dragged to a distance of 400 meters underneath the van. Deceased had consumed liquor and quantity of alcohol found in the blood was 184.22 mg. 25. Defence of the accused is that deceased and his friends chased the van. His head struck against the rear portion of the bumper and he fell down and received injuries. Defence of the accused is probablized since deceased had consumed alcohol and the hair strands were found struck on the rear bumper of the vehicle and blood was also detected on the rear bumper. No blood was found on the front portion of bumper. Prosecution has to proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused has to prove the case only within the ambit of probabilities. 26. Dr. No blood was found on the front portion of bumper. Prosecution has to proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused has to prove the case only within the ambit of probabilities. 26. Dr. H.S. Sekhon has admitted in his cross-examination that if a person chasing a moving vehicle suddenly falls on rear bumper and is dragged for a short distance of about 10-15 meters, injuries as stated in the post mortem, could be received. 27. Accordingly, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any. Bail bonds of the respondent are discharged.