IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. 325 of 2003 Date of Decision: 14th July, 2010 __________________________________________________________ State of H.P. ….Appellant. Versus Parkash Chand & others ….Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the Appellant: Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondents: Shri M.S. Guleria, Advocate. __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J (oral). The State is aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No. III, Mandi acquitting the respondent for offences under Sections 279, 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Constable Munshi Ram No. 67, LHC Balak Ram No. 91, Constable Ishwaru Dass No. 268 and Constable Munshi Ram No. 482 were on patrolling duty at place Khaliar, Mandi Town when a maruti van, bearing No. HP-02-0102 being driven in high speed and in rash or negligent manner struck with ASI 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 Shamsher Singh PW8 causing injuries to him. The accused fled away from the scene of the crime after parking the van near Beas Bridge. Roop Lal had disclosed to the police that this van was driven by Hukam Chand. It is further stated that six wooden slippers of deodar and five wooden frames of deodar were recovered from the van. 3. Without going into the details of evidence, two things have emerged in this case. One is that there is no evidence on record to establish as to whom this van belonged to. It is very surprising and strange that no attempt has been made by the prosecution to prove the ownership of this van which could have easily been established so. The second aspect is that the identity of the driver has also not been established on record despite the fact that one Roop Lal had disclosed that the driver of van was Hukam Chand. He has not been examined by the prosecution nor has been cited as a witness to be examined in Court. These two important facts, as held by the learned trial Court, are sufficient for acquitting the respondent herein. 4. Learned Additional Advocate General for State submits that the police party, which was on Naka, had witnessed this incident first hand and it was the respondent who was responsible for causing the injuries to PW8 ASI Shamsher Sing h. I need not consider the case any further. The star witness Roop Lal has not been produced in Court for the reasons best known to the prosecution. No effort has been made by the prosecution to even establish the ownership of the maruti van. There is no evidence on record as to whom the so called timber belonged. 5. There is no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. Before parting, I must express my deep anguish in the manner in which the prosecution has conducted this case. The evidence of PW8 ASI 3 Shamsher Singh is nothing, but an admission of the case of the prosecution. July 14, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), Ms Judge