IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous Appeal No.658-MA of 2007 Date of Decision: February 08, 2010 Union Territory, Chandigarh .....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS Shiv Kumar .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the appellant. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This appeal is directed against judgment of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh dated 7.7.2007. Learned counsel contends that Balbir Singh, Constable, was present at the place of occurrence and therefore, there is sufficient evidence to indicate culpability of the respondent-accused who allegedly was driving the offending truck, and he should have been convicted. I have considered the contentions. Crl. Misc. Appeal No.658-MA of 2007 [2] Detailed reference to the evidence has been made in the judgment in Para 10 to 12. It is the admitted position that neither the injured identified the accused nor could the deceased identify the accused before her death. It is further admitted that the FIR is blind, without mentioning the details of the accused. The accused was not apprehended at the spot. So far as the statement of Balbir Singh, Constable who appeared as PW-3, is concerned, he identified the accused only in Court. Accused was not apprehended at the spot. The story of identifying the accused was developed on the day next to the accident while Balbir Singh, Constable was on patrol duty. In a blind FIR, identification parade has not been carried. The Trial Court has come to the conclusion that evidence was not sufficient so as to conclude that the respondent is the accused. It is a plausible conclusion and therefore, requires no interference in this appeal against acquittal. The appeal is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) February 08, 2010 JUDGE Avin Crl. Misc. Appeal No.658-MA of 2007 [3] 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?