IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 348 of 2002 Date of decision: 22. 5. 2009 State of H.P. …..Petitioner Versus Kuldeep Chand Alias Bandi ……Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 . For the Appellant: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate, General. For the respondent : Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J. (Oral) Nanak Chand deceased was allegedly crushed under the Jeep of the respondent near village Amb. He sustained injuries and was removed to the Hospital on 16.2.1997 later he died. Thus a case was registered under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. As per the case of the prosecution, respondent Kuldeep Chand was the driver of the said Jeep. PW-2 Vinod Kumar is the brother of the deceased who was an alleged eye witness but he did not identify the respondent during the trial of the case as such respondent was acquitted by the learned trial court. Hence the State preferred this present appeal. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes. - 2 - I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record. Of course, PW-2 Vinod Kumar stated about the accident wherein his brother Nanak Chand had sustained injuries while crossing the road for boarding the Bus as he had to go to Jawalamukhi for a hair cut, but he did not see the respondent driving the alleged offending vehicle. Except this, there is no other evidence to link the respondent with the offence charged, therefore, the acquittal of the respondent cannot be said to be perverse, therefore, the judgment of acquittal does not call for any interference by this court. The appeal is dismissed. The respondent is discharged of the bail bonds entered upon by him at any stage during the trial of this case. May 22, 2009 (Surinder Singh),J. (cm)