1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 671 of 2001. Date of Decision: 5-12-2008. ____________________________________________________________ State of H.P. Appellant. Versus Iqbal Mohammad. Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant : Shri J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. For respondent : Sh. M. Kaushal, Advocate vice Shri Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. ______________________________________________________________ Surinder Singh, J . (oral) State has felt aggrieved and dis-satisfied by the judgment of acquittal passed by learned Judicial Magistrate in Criminal case No. 131/2 of 1998 decided on 16-5-2001 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Heard and gone through the record. Learned trial Court jettisoned the evidence of the prosecution led, to prove the allegations against the respondent. Succinctly, the case of the prosecution has been that on 19.8.1998 at about 7.45 P.M, the scooterist along with pillion rider was going in the same direction at Paonta Sahib as that of truck No. HP-17- 4466. When it reached near Badri Nagar, the rear tyres of the said truck hit the scooter as a result of which the scooterist along-with pillion rider died on the spot. Information was given to the Police by Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 PW1 Rajinder Singh on the basis of which FIR was lodged. Police visited the spot, prepared the site plan Exhibit PW6/A and recorded the statements of witnesses. Autopsy of the dead-bodies was got done in the Sub Divisional Hospital. During the investigation, the police came to the conclusion that respondent was the driver of the truck who was rash and negligent in driving his truck which resulted into the accident. On completing the challan, it was presented against the respondent for his trial. Finding a prima facie case against the respondent under the aforesaid sections, notice of accusation was put to him which he denied and stated that he has a defense to make. To prove its case, the prosecution examined its witnesses and the respondent was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and led evidence in defense. At the end of the trial, the respondent was acquitted on the ground that it was not clear how the accident in question had taken place and further that the evidence on record was contradictory. As a matter of fact, on the examination of the record of the learned trial Court, I find that there is only PW1 Rajinder Singh, the sole eye witness of the alleged incident which was examined by the prosecution. He stated that he did not know as to who was driving the said truck at the relevant time. Since he resiled from his earlier version, he was meticulously examined in detail by the learned Public Prosecutor but nothing material could be extracted from him, nor the respondent could be connected with the alleged incident. Another dent was caused by the Investigating Officer pW6 in his cross-examination. According to him, the deceased scooterist was coming from the opposite side and struck against the truck in question, whereas the case of the prosecution was otherwise, as 3 stated above. Since there is no evidence on record to show that it was the respondent driving the truck at the relevant time, therefore, in these circumstances and also on account of the above contradictions, the case of the prosecution stands not proved against the respondent and the acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court cannot be interfered with. Accordingly the appeal sans merit and is dismissed. (Surinder Singh) Judge. December 5, 2008. (bm)