IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. 271-MA of 2011 (O & M) Date of Decision: October 13, 2011 Union Territory, Chandigarh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Surinder Singh .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate, for the applicant. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. The applicant seeks leave to appeal against acquittal in context of judgment dated 7.8.2010 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh. Respondent was charged for commission of offence under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A IPC. 2. The story set up by the prosecution was that while injured Krishna Devi and her husband namely Sunder Dass were going on scooter, scooter being driven by Sunder Dass (deceased). Accused who was driving the offending car came and hit the scooter from the back side. Due to the impact, Krishna Devi Crl. Misc. No.271-MA of 2011 [2] alongwith her husband fell down. Husband died in the hospital. 3. In the impugned judgment, in Para 14, the Trial Court has taken note of the fact that in cross-examination, injured Krishna Devi (eye-witness) took the stand that she could not explain the exact cause of occurrence as she was not in a position to judge the occurrence. She further deposed that there was a light point at the place of accident. The scooter had to take turn for going towards industrial area. The scooter touched the side of car and fell on the road. The car stopped there and then. She further admitted that the car was on the side of the scooter. 4. A contradiction has come in the prosecution case, in so much as, on the one side, it is pleaded that scooter was hit by the car from back side, while on the other hand, it has been pleaded that car was on the side of the scooter. 5. Learned counsel has argued that perusal of the site plan indicates that the turning/ crossing was at a distance. 6. The site plan being contrary to the ocular version, benefit would go to the accused. No ground for interference in the findings recorded in the impugned judgment is made out. 7. The application is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) October 13, 2011 JUDGE avin Crl. Misc. No.271-MA of 2011 [3] 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?