IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.629 of 2002 Date of Decision: July 23, 2009 State of H.P. ..Appellant. Versus Ram Singh. …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. J.L.Bhardwaj, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J. (Oral) State has appealed against the judgment dated 16.4.2002 of learned Judicial Magistrate, whereby respondent Ram Singh, who was tried for offences, under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC, has been acquitted. Case of the prosecution, which led to the trial of the respondent, may be stated thus. On 20.11.1997, around 2 p.m, when PW3 Bina Devi was working as a labourer on the National Highway, near Village Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - Malyana, on Dhalli bypass and her child was playing by the side of the road, truck No.HP-51-2916, appeared from Mehali side. It was being driven in a rash manner. Respondent was in driver’s seat. Truck hit the child of PW3 Bina Devi. Child died on the spot. PW3 Bina Devi, then went to inform her husband Rajinder Singh, who was working at some distance in connection with maintenance of the same road. Police was telephonically informed. PW6 ASI Bhagat Ram reached the spot. He recorded the statement of PW2 Rajinder Singh. The said statement is Ex.PW2/A. On the basis of said statement, formal FIR Ex.PW6/A, was registered. Truck after hitting the child had stopped at a short distance. Truck was taken into possession. Respondent was also there on the spot. He was arrested by the police. Prosecution examined Rajinder Singh as PW2 and his wife Bina Devi as PW3, to prove the charge. Respondent denied that he was driving the truck. Trial - 3 - Court held that evidence did not prove that the truck was being driven by the respondent. I have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General, as also the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. Even though, PW2 Rajinder Singh testified that he saw the truck and the respondent driving it when the accident took place but his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW2/A, shows that neither he saw the accident taking place nor did he see the respondent in driver’s seat, because as per said statement, he came to know about the accident only after his wife came crying and told that the truck had run over their child. Not only this, PW3 Bina Devi, while appearing in the witness-box stated that her husband PW2 Rajinder Singh did not see the accident taking place and that he was apprised of the accident by her. PW3 Bina Devi, in her cross-examination stated that she could not notice as to who was driving the - 4 - truck and what was the number. Prosecution did not adduce any other evidence to establish the identity of the respondent as the driver of the truck, in question. Prosecution did not lead any other evidence to prove that the respondent had any concern with the truck. Since, evidence on record does not prove that it was the respondent who was driving the truck, no fault can be found with the judgment of trial Court. Hence, appeal is dismissed. July 23, 2009. (Surjit Singh), J s