IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 563/2010 Date of decision: 23.5.2011 State of H.P. …..Appellant Versus Ashwani Kumar ……Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 no For the Appellant: Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. For the respondents : Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate, Surinder Singh, J. (Oral) The acquittal of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code in criminal case No. 57-II of 2003, passed by the learned trial Court on 26.8.2010, has been challenged in the instant appeal by the State on the ground that the learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence on record in the right perspective and further that the statement of PW1 Parkash Chand, father of the deceased child was wrongly disbelieved. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes - 2 - 2. Heard and gone through the evidence on record. 3. In short, prosecution story can be stated thus. On 21.5.2003 at about 8 p.m., PW1 Parkash Chand, who was having his house abutting to the road, came out to urinate and went across the road. In the meantime, his minor son (2 ½ years) came running after him and is allegedly hit by a speedy Mahindra Jeep bearing registration No. HP-39-1853 with the result, he fell down on the road and died. The driver of the Jeep did not stop the vehicle but was apprehended at about 6 k.m. away from the place of accident by the Local residents. 4. The injured was taken to PHC Sihunta where he was declared dead. Consequently, PW1 aforesaid got recorded his statement Ext. PW1/A in the Police Station mentioning the registration number of the vehicle which was responsible for the accident but did not supply any particular of the accused and further stated that he would inform the police as and when he would come to know about it. However earlier, within five minutes of the accident Jigari Ram PW5 a B.D.C member had telephonically informed the police and rapat Ext. PA was recorded in the Daily Diary but neither it supplies - 3 - the number nor the name and identification of the accused. There is no other witness except PW1 Parkash Chand with respect to the alleged accident. 5. PW5 Jigari Ram reached the spot after the accident had already taken place. According to him about 100 persons had gathered on the spot and the police reached there within 20/25 minutes. The statement, of PW1 Parkash Chand Ext. PW1/A, under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded at 9.25 p.m., i.e., after more than one hour. None of the witnesses, who apprehended the respondent later at a distance of 6 k.m. from the place of accident, were examined. In his statement (Ext. PW1/A), the complainant neither gave particulars of the respondent nor stated that he could identify the driver of the said vehicle, if produced before him. But as PW1 he stated that it was the accused, who was responsible for the said accident and none of the witnesses have stated except the complainant about the registration number of the jeep in question who had caused the accident. The people from Balana village, who are alleged to have stopped and apprehended the vehicle have also not been examined to support the - 4 - prosecution case, as to who had informed that it was the same vehicle which caused the accident. Therefore, the sole testimony of the complainant, in view of the above facts remained uncorroborated to prove the case against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt. 6. The findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court are borne out from the evidence on record which requires no interference. The appeal is without merit hence dismissed. 7. The respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him at any stage during the proceeding of this case. May 23, 2011 (Surinder Singh), (cm) Judge.