1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Appeal No. 276-SBA of 2002. Date of Decision: 9.8.2010 *** Union Territory of Chandigarh Administration .. Appellant Vs. Inder Singh .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Rajive Sharma, Standing Counsel UT Chandigarh. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate for the respondent. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The appellant has filed the present appeal laying challenge to the judgment dated 30.9.2000 by dint of which the accused-respondent has been acquitted in trial of case FIR No.246 dated 16.8.1994, registered under Sections 279, 337, 304-A IPC and 3/181 of Motor Vehicles Act, Police Station East Chandigarh. The case of the prosecution is that on 16.8.1994 accused- respondent drove truck No. HIE-623 rashly and negligently and caused accident, as a result of which one Data Ram, who was lying beneath the tree was run over and consequently died. The accident was alleged to have been witnessed by complainant Gurbachan Singh, who also claimed to have received injuries in the said accident. After the trial, as noticed above, the accused was acquitted by the learned trial Court. Hence this appeal. Having heard learned State counsel as well as going through the impugned judgment, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. In the instant case, the identity of the accused- respondent as driver of the offending vehicle has not been proved by the 2 prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. It is the case of the prosecution that after the said accident, the accused came out of the truck and on enquiry disclosed his name as Inder Singh and lateron made good his escape from the spot. PW Gurbachan Singh also disclosed to this effect before the Court below. But after the arrest no test identification parade of the accused was got done by the prosecution and this witness identified the accused for the first time in the Court, which, as per law, is no identification. That apart, the conduct of Gurbachan Singh is also not free from doubts. His presence at the spot has been doubted by the learned trial Court and it was concluded that he has been introduced by the police as an eye-witness. Though, he claims that he also received injuries in the said accident, but no medical evidence to this effect was produced by the prosecution. Even it is not believable that once the accused was caught at the spot then how he ran away from the place of accident. Even the tenor in which the alleged accident took place was found improbable. Though, it was claimed that truck was running at that time on the speed of 60 Kms per hour and after the accident it struck against cement pillar, but the photographs of the spot, as produced by the prosecution, did not corroborate this aspect of the prosecution version. Thus, finding the version of the prosecution as improbable and not sufficient to prove the complicity of the accused- respondent in the commission of offence, the learned trial court rightly acquitted him. The High Court ought not to interfere with the order of acquittal unless the judgment of acquittal is perverse or highly unreasonable. In the instant case, the judgment of acquittal rendered by the learned trial court is neither perverse nor unreasonable and it cannot be said that the trial court based its findings on irrelevant or inadmissible evidence. Dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE August 9,2010 Jiten