1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Criminal Leave to Appeal No.142 of 2005. State of Rajasthan VERSUS Man Singh son of Shri Sua Lal. Date of Order :::: 17/12/2009 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalip Singh Mr. G.S. Fauzdar, Public Prosecutor for State *** BY THE COURT : Heard learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perued the record. Vide judgment dated 04.02.2005 the accused – Man Singh son of Shri Sua Lal has been acquitted of the charge under Section 279 and 304- A, I.P.C. The learned trial Court, after having gone through the entire prosecution evidence and the material available on record has come to the conclusion that neither in the F.I.R. nor in the statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C. the informant disclosed the registration number of the vehicle and it is only after more than three-years that for the first time in the statements recorded in the Court that PW-1 - Mahendra Singh disclosed the registration number of the Jeep. 2 Two prosecution-witnesses viz., PW-3 and PW-4 – Ravindra Sahni and Jai Singh were integorrating and the statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C. recorded after more than one-&-half-months of the accident. Learned Court below has doubted their presence on the place of accident at the time when the accident occurred. As their presence is not corroborrated by the other eye-witnesses. The learned trial Court has also taken a note of the fact that PW-5 – Narendra Singh, PW-6 – Tej Singh and PW-7 – Mukesh have been declared hostile and have not corroborrated and supported the prosecution case. In the facts and circumstances, therefore, the learned trial Court taking into account the entire set of evidence and after appreciating the same has come to the conclusion that the identity of the vehicle was not established nor is the identity of the person, who was driving the vehicle established beyond reasonable doubt. In the facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the judgment of the learned Court below calls for any interference. This application for leave to appeal is accordingly, in the facts and circumstances, dismissed. (Dalip Singh), J. ashok/