U T CHANDIGARH Vs. NARINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-U.T. Chandigarh against the judgment dated 18.04.2001 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, whereby, accusedrespondent was acquitted of the charges framed against him.

(2.) The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 14.12.1998 after receiving wireless message regarding accident near Attawa chowk involving truck No.CHW-1228 and a young girl, SI Baljeet Singh reached the spot, where he came to know that injured girl was taken to PGI. A Sunny bearing registration No.CH-01L-8818 was lying at the spot, which was taken into police possession. As no independent witness was available at the spot, the Investigating Officer went to PGI, where the doctor declared the injured namely Hovini, unfit to make statement. On 19.12.1998, Constable Rajinder Singh lodged a complaint that on 14.12.1998, he was on three days casual leave and was proceeding to his village. He was present at Attawa chowk to board a bus at about 7.45 P.M. He stated that a driver of the truck, who was driving the truck at a high speed rashly and negligently, while overtaking the Sunny, suddenly turned the truck towards the left side and hit the girl. It is also stated in the statement of the complainant that truck driver stopped the truck at some distance and complainant also reached the spot. The truck driver gave his name as Narinder Singh. While the complainant was trying to pick up the injured girl, the truck driver managed to escape. In the meantime, police control room (PCR) van reached the spot and injured girl was taken to hospital. It is also stated that as soon as the complainant had joined duty on 19.12.1998, he immediately lodged the report. Accused was arrested. After necessary investigation, challan was presented against the accused-respondent.

(3.) On presentation of challan against accused-respondent, copies of challan and other documents were supplied to him under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Finding prima facie case, the accusedrespondent was charge-sheeted under Sections 279 and 338 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.