1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 667 of 2001. Date of Decision: 12-11-2008. ___________________________________________________________ State of H.P. Appellant. Versus Naresh Kumar. Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. For the respondent : Mr. R.K. Gautam, Senior Advocate with Mr. J.R. Poswal, Advocate. ______________________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH, J. (oral) The respondent was tried and acquitted by the learned trial Court of the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code in Criminal case No. 101/2 of 1998 decided on 8-6-2001. In brief the prosecution story can be stated thus: On 28-6- 1998, PW6 Hira Lal maker of the FIR was accompanying deceased Bal Krishan. Both were going on foot towards their village on the National Highway at Bhararighat in the evening around 8.30 P.M. Hira Lal was ahead of Krishan Lal. It is alleged that the respondent was driving the Crane loaded with a damaged bus and crushed Bal Krishan. He died on the spot. The vehicle-crane did not stop there. PW6 Hira Lal shouted for his companion but there was no reply from behind. When he returned, he saw him dead lying in the pool Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 of blood. In the meantime, a scooterist named Raju came there. He was told to inform Pradhan and also the Police. After half an hour, the Police reached the spot and recorded the statement Exhibit PW6/A of Hira Lal aforesaid, under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the basis of which F.I.R. Exhibit PW6/B was formally recorded. The police prepared the inquest report and sent the dead- body for the post mortem examination. The Doctor found the crush injuries coupled with some more injuries on the dead-body and it was opined that the death was due to the cardio respiratory failure because of the head injury and maxillofacial injury with excessive blood loss and issued the post-mortem report Exhibit PW1/A. After completing the investigation of the case, the challan was presented against the respondent-driver of the crane. Finding a prima facie case under the aforesaid Sections, the respondent was charge-sheeted. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove its case, the prosecution examined its witnesses and the respondent was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The circumstances which were found attendant upon him from the evidence on record, the questions were put. In reply to question No.2, he admitted that he was driving the crane in question on 29th June, 1998 but not on 28.6.1998, when the alleged incident had taken place. No evidence in defense was led. At the end of the trial, the respondent was acquitted of the charges aforesaid which has been assailed in this appeal on the ground that the respondent was not identified and further that there was no evidence of rash and negligent driving by its Driver. 3 After going through the evidence on record, I find that the submissions made by Shri Gautam, learned Senior Advocate has a great force that the prosecution has failed to establish that at the relevant time, the respondent was the driver of the vehicle in question and there is no evidence of rash and negligent driving. The sole eye witness of the alleged incident is PW6 Hira Lal. Neither in the FIR nor in his statement, he has categorically stated that the respondent was driving the vehicle in question at the time of accident. Even he did not attribute any rash and negligent driving to the driver of the crane. Further, in his cross-examination, he stated that he did not witness the accident in question. Except this, there is no other evidence to connect the respondent with the alleged offence. Therefore, for the above reason, the respondent cannot be convicted of the offences charged. Thus the findings of acquittal arrived at by the learned trial Court are borne out from the record which of course requires no interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon him at any time during the proceeding of this appeal. The matter is accordingly disposed of. (Surinder Singh) Judge. November 12, 2008. (bm)