--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. Cr.A. No. 368 of 2003. Decided on: December 22, 2010. State of H. P. …… Appellant. Versus Jeetu Ram. …….Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting?No. For the appellant : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate, Surinder Singh, J (oral): 1. The State has challenged the acquittal of the respondent, passed by the learned trial Court in Criminal Case No.16-II of 1998, decided on 22nd May, 2003, for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, read with Sections 184 and 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 2. Respondent was put on trial, on the allegations that on 7.11.1997, he was driving truck bearing registration No.HP-20-5541 in a very high - 2 - speed. It was coming from the side of Nehran Pukhar. When it reached at village Badhoon, a marriage party was going on and it hit Surmi alias Jungnu a minor girl. She died on the spot and the truck driver fled away from the spot. 3. Next day, PW1 Rajinder Kumar made a statement Ex.PW1/A under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the police to this effect and stated that, at the relevant time, the truck was being driven by Sham Lal and there was no mention of the respondent. 4. During investigation, Police got done the autopsy of the dead body from the hospital and visited the spot. The truck was found standing on the road at the point of accident. Its photographs were taken and impounded. Police also prepared site plan Ex.PW4/B and on 9.11.1997 took into possession its documents from respondent Jeetu Ram. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and concluded that it was the respondent Jeetu Ram who was responsible for the said accident and not Sham Lal. As such, he was arrested and later - 3 - enlarged on bail. Challan was presented against him for the offences aforesaid. Finding a prima-facie case against the respondent, he was accordingly charge-sheeted, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. To prove its case, prosecution examined its witnesses. Respondent was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He denied the case of the prosecution and also the fact that at the relevant time, he was driving the truck in question. At the end of trial, respondent was acquitted on the point of identification. State felt aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal, hence the instant appeal. 6. Heard and gone through the record. 7. PW1 Rajinder Kumar is the complainant. He proved his statement Ex.PW1/A and also the fact that the truck in question had hit the minor girl, who died on the spot. He also admitted that when he reached the spot, the driver of the truck was present there, for about 5 to 10 minutes and his name was Sham Lal. He categorically denied that the respondent Jeetu Ram was the driver of the truck in - 4 - question and this fact has also been corroborated by PW2 Lekh Raj. He in his cross-examination stated that the driver had fled away from the spot and he did not know whether the respondent was driving the vehicle. Although PW3 Sanjiv Kumar in his examination-in-chief stated that, at the relevant time, respondent Jeetu Ram was driving the truck, but in cross-examination, admitted that he was informed by the police that it was Jeetu Ram, who was driver of the truck, because a challan form was recovered from the truck, wherein his name was mentioned, but stated that he did not see Jeetu Ram respondent on the spot or while driving the truck. 8. Except the above evidence, there is no other statement, which could implicate respondent Jeetu Ram for the offences charged. 9. In view of this situation, when the identification of the respondent is not established, the offences charged against the respondent stand not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, finding to this effect arrived by the learned trial Court is borne out from the record, which requires no - 5 - interference. As such, the appeal filed by the State sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. 10. The respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him at any time, during the proceedings of the case. 11. Send down the records. (Surinder Singh ) Judge December 22, 2010. (Pds)