IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.M.P (M). No. 812/2010 Date of decision: 28. 9. 2010 State of H.P. …applicant/appellant Versus Vir Singh ……Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1no For the appellant: Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General.. For the respondents : None. Surinder Singh J. (Oral) Record of the learned trial court received and perused. 2. Heard. 3. This is an application seeking leave to appeal against the acquittal passed by the learned trial Court in Criminal Case No. 3/2 of 2008 wherein respondent had been put on trial and acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A Indian Penal Code allegedly causing injury to Indu Mani and death of Gandhur a labourer, by the rash and negligent driving. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes - 2 - 4. According to the case of the prosecution, injured and deceased were working on the side of the road on the National Highway (NH) 22 for the construction of the Hotel at the place known as “Padothaq”. The truck No. HP64-6312 came rashly and negligently from Kandaghat side and hit the deceased Gandhur and also Smt. Indu Mani causing injuries to her. Both were taken to Kandaghat Hospital. Gandhur died on the way whereas Indu Mani was given treatment. FIR was lodged by one Shri Suman Kumar (not examined). Learned trial Court acquitted the respondent on the ground of identification. 5. Be it stated that neither injured Indu Mani nor Suman Kumar informant were examined before the learned trial Court. The FIR though discloses the name of respondent responsible for the accident, but it was having been supplied to him by some other persons whose names have not been mentioned there in nor in the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. PW4 Roop Lal is owner of the truck. According to him he was informed about the accident by his son respondent Vir Singh but in cross examination stated that on the day of the alleged incident one Saleem was driving the truck. - 3 - 7. The defence taken by the respondent was that the deceased and the injured both were hit by some other truck. Although PW1 in his statement before the police had given the reference that the truck in question had caused injury to his wife and deceased, brother-in-law but this fact was not even testified by him when examined as PW1 in the Court and he also could not identify the respondent as the driver of the truck in question. 8. Respondent in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in reply to question No. 16 stated that he was not driving the alleged offending vehicle on the said date. Thus, on the strength of the aforesaid evidence, in my opinion, learned trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that the respondent could not be connected with the alleged offence as such the leave to appeal is rejected. September, 28, 2010 (Surinder Singh),J (cm)