IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.364 of 2001 Date of decision: 24.04.2008 State of Himachal Pradesh. Appellant Versus Balbir Singh. Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting1? For the appellant: Mr.J.S.Guleria, Law Officer. For the respondents: Ms.Vandana Kuthiala, Advocate. V.K.Ahuja, J(Oral). This is an appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the judgment of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Baijnath, dated 27.3.2001, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the accusation under Section 279 and Section 304-A IPC. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that on 25.11.1997, a scooterist hit Kirpa Ram while driving the scooter in a rash and negligent manner on the wrong side. The scooterist fled away from the spot after hitting Kirpa Ram. His son, who was accompanying him and one another person took him to the hospital from where he was referred to P.G.I., Chandigarh where he died on 28.11.1997. A report was lodged with the police and Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 after investigation, Challan was filed and the accused was tried by the learned trial Court resulting in his acquittal. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. A perusal of the record of the case shows that three witnesses have been examined as eye-witnesses. The first witness PW-1 Pyare Lal is the son of deceased, who has stated about the manner in which the scooter was being driven by the accused with which his father was hit and suffered injuries. However, a perusal of his statement shows that he had identified a wrong person standing in the Court as an accused. The second eye witness is PW-2 Tara Ram who also accompanied deceased and his son to the Hospital. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the accused appears to be a person of similar features as the scooterist who was driving the scooter in question at the relevant time. The third eye-witness is Amit who when examined turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The main question for determination in this case was the identity of the accused which has to be established beyond reasonable doubt because the accused cannot be held guilty by presumption that he may be the same person who was driving the scooter at the relevant time. One another material factor in the case is that the PW-1 Pyare Lal stated that the scooterist ran away from the spot alongwith the scooter, whereas the Medical Officer PW-5 O.P.Ram Dev has stated that the injured Kirpa Ram had been brought to the hospital by the accused, the present respondent. The defence plea taken by the accused as observed by the learned trial Court, is that he was studying in the adjoining 3 school and he had taken the injured to the hospital. As per the version of PW-1 Pyare Lal, the scooterist had run away from the spot after hitting his father and as per the version of the Medical Officer PW-5 O.P. Ram Dev, the accused had brought the injured to the hospital, which clearly suggests that the accused was not driving the scooter at the relevant time. The owner of the scooter was not associated by the prosecution as per the Investigating Officer PW-4 Bhagat Ram, though it was for the prosecution to ascertain as to who was driving the scooter at the relevant time. The accused has tendered in evidence document Mark DX to prove his presence in the school at the relevant time, which was not proved according to law. It is clear from the above discussion that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court holding that the identity of the respondent was not established that he was driving the scooter at the relevant time cannot be said to be perverse calling for interference by this Court. In view of above discussion, there is no merit in this appeal, which is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondent stand discharged. 24th April, 2008 (V.K.Ahuja),J. (sds)