IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 72 of 2004 Date of Decision: 29.6.2010 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus. Tara Chand and another …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No. For the Appellant: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondents: Mr. Virender S. Chauhan, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral). 1. This appeal by the State is directed against the judgement dated 13th October, 2003 delivered by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Theog, District Shimla in Case No. 88.2 of 1996 whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 188 and 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that deceased Ramesh was walking towards Premghat alongwith PW-1 Rajinder Singh and PW-2 Ramanand at about 10.30 a.m. on 13.5.1996. When these three persons were near the 2 petrol pump at Theog a truck bearing No. HP-09-0275 came at a high speed and this truck hit Ramesh who fell down and got crushed under the wheels of the truck. Unfortunately, Ramesh succumbed to his injuries in the hospital. According to the prosecution, the truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by accused Tara Chand. It is not clear as to why Sita Ram the other accused was in fact made a party to the case. The learned trial Court acquitted the accused mainly on the ground that though as per the prosecution it was Tara Chand who was driving the truck the witnesses had failed to identify the driver who was driving the truck at the relevant time. The two witnesses PW-1 Rajinder Singh and PW-2 Ramanand admitted that they had not seen the person who was driving the truck and according to PW-1 it was PW-5 Manohar Lal who told him that accused Tara Chand was driving the truck. PW-1 also admitted that when the police came to the spot the accused had stated that he was the conductor and not the driver of the truck. Therefore, it is apparent that the eye witnesses failed to identify the driver. 3. As far as PW-5 Manohar Lal is concerned, he turned hostile and did not support the prosecution at all. According to him he neither saw Tara Chand nor Sita Ram 3 accused at the spot. He denied that he had seen the accused driving the truck. 4. Since, nobody has been able to identify the person who was driving the vehicle the learned trial Court was fully justified in acquitting the accused. There is no merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged. 29th June, 2010 (Deepak Gupta) ™ Judge.