HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.A. No. : 348 of 2003 Decided on: 8.9.2010 State of H.P. ……… Appellant. Versus Ram Singh ………Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellant: Mr.J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr.Dhruv Shaunak, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J.(Oral): This is an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmour District at Nahan, dated 29.5.2003, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the notice of accusation put to him for offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304-A and 201 of the IPC. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 9.4.2002, at about 5.30/6.00 p.m., complainant PW-2 Ram Lal was going on a scooter alongwith Sunil Thakur, who was sitting as a pillion rider. A truck crossed them, which hit on the right side of the scooter and Sunil Thakur fell on the road, while the complainant Ram Lal also suffered injuries. The truck did not stop at the spot and stopped at some distance, but the driver of the truck ran away from the spot. ___________________________________________ Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - After some time, a vehicle came from Dadahu side and a person sitting in the said vehicle told about the number of the truck and the name of the owner of the said truck. On this report, a case was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed before the learned trial Court, who tried the respondent under the Sections mentioned above leading to his acquittal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 4. On appraisal of the record of the case, it is clear that the prosecution had examined 12 witnesses to substantiate their case. Out of the 12 witnesses examined by the prosecution, the statement of PW-2 Ram Lal, who was driving the scooter, can be said to be the most material since he is the only eye witness examined to prove the charge as against the respondent. 5. PW-2 Ram Lal has stated that he was going on scooter, which was being driven by him and Sunil Thakur was sitting as a pillion rider. A truck came from behind the scooter at a fast speed, hit against their scooter and Sunil Thakur sitting on the scooter was hit with the truck. He stated that the scooter fell on the left side and he and the pillion rider also fell down. The truck driver did not stop at the spot. He stopped the said truck at the next curve. The complainant raised an alarm but the truck driver ran away alongwith the truck. Thereafter, a Utility Van came from Dadahu side and one person, namely, Bahadur Singh, who was sitting in the said Van, told the number of the truck and that it belonged to one Kamal Raj of Bharari. A perusal of - 3 - the statement of the complainant made by him under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. shows that he had not mentioned the truck number in the said statement. He admitted that he had not given the truck number in his statement under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C., but now in his statement in the Court, he came up with the plea that he had also noted down the number of the truck. Therefore, this part of his statement does not inspire confidence since had he noted down the truck number, it was quite natural for him to have given the truck number in his statement made by him to the police also. 6. Apart from the above, it is clear that the information was given to him by one Bahadur Singh and the driver of the Utility Van about the number of the truck and its owner, but neither the said Bahadur Singh, occupant of the Utility Van, nor the driver was examined, who could prove that the truck bearing this number had gone ahead of the Utility Van. Thus, it is clear that the information was given to the complainant about the truck number by the driver of the Utility Van, but the said driver has not been examined by the prosecution to substantiate their case. There is no other evidence on record to show that this truck had crossed the place of accident at the time when the accident took place or this was being driven by the accused. The accused has neither been identified by the complainant PW-2 Ram Lal in the Court nor it has been stated by him that the vehicle was being driven by the respondent at that time. Therefore, the identity of the driver of the truck has also not been established by any evidence and in the absence of the identity of the driver having been established, it cannot be - 4 - assumed that the driver of the truck in question, whosoever he may be, was liable for the offence in question. 7. Therefore, it is clear that the prosecution had failed to prove their case beyond any reasonable doubt and the final findings recorded by the learned trial Court holding that the prosecution had failed to prove their case beyond any reasonable doubt cannot be termed as perverse calling for an interference by this Court. 8. In view of the above discussion, I hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondent shall stand discharged. September 8, 2010. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge