In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 549 of 2003 Date of decision: May 04, 2009 Lal Chand .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Baljit Puri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Surender Kapoor, Addl. A.G. Punjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 11.12.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner (herein referred as 'the petitioner') against the judgment dated 28.4.2000 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- under Sections 304-A/279 IPC. The factual matrix of the case is that on 24.11.1997, Raghbir Singh complainant (herein referred as 'the complainant') along with Satpal Singh was going towards old bus stand, Bhawanigarh on bicycle. His nephew Bitu Singh and Beant Singh were going ahead of him. At about 9.00 p.m. when they reached near grain market Bhawanigarh, the petitioner while driving truck bearing registration No. RJ-13G-0628 rashly and negligently, ran over Bitu Singh and Beant Singh who died at the spot. The petitioner ran way from the spot. On the basis of the above statement, a case was registered and investigated. Completion of the investigation was followed by a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The petitioner was charged for the offence punishable under Sections 279/427/304-A IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. The prosecution led sufficient evidence and ultimately the trial ended in conviction. His appeal also failed. Crl. Revision No. 549 of 2003 -2- *** Arguments heard. The accident in this case took place on 24.11.1997 regarding which the report was lodged on 25.11.1997. The FIR does not contain the name of the petitioner. The witnesses examined by the prosecution did not know the accused since earlier. It was night time when the accident took place. The driver of the truck after causing accident had fled away along with truck. He was arrested later on, after registration of the FIR. The witnesses did not say if the driver had come out of the truck, stayed for some time and then left the place. The person who had produced the driver was also not examined. As such, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, identification of the petitioner had become essential which was not got conducted by the Investigating Officer. The witnesses also did not narrate as to in what manner the petitioner was rash or negligent, which are the sine qua for proving the offence, but the prosecution has failed to establish the same. The photographs taken at the spot, without proof of negatives, could not be said to be proved. The Investigating Officer has also not been examined, as such the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, interference in the impugned judgment at my end has become inevitable. Resultantly, I accept this petition, set aside the impugned judgment and acquit the petitioner of the charges framed against him. Bail bond and surety bond furnished by him stand discharged. Fine, if any deposited by him, be refunded. May 04, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge