STATE OF H P Vs. SUDERSHAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent was tried and acquitted by the by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amb, District Una (H.P.) on 10.5.2000, for offences under Sections 279, 304-A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, which has been assailed in this appeal on law and facts. Heard and gone through the records of the case.

(2.) IN brief the prosecution case is that on 17.5.1998 at about 7.30 p.m. at village Karluhi, the respondent while driving his Maruti van, bearing registration No.HP-24-0129, hit Hony Kumar, who was 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? yes standing on the road side, assisting in checking the air pressure in the bicycle of Ashwani Kumar. Hony Kumar was seriously injured and was immediately removed to local hospital, from where he was referred to Ludhiana but succumbed to his injuries on the way. The matter was reported to the police by Dharam Pal vide statement Ex.PA in which he did not disclose either the name of the respondent or registration number of the aforesaid Maruti van. According to him, he could identify the said driver if produced before him. But as PW1 Dharam Pal complainant could not identify the driver and stated that it was white coloured Maruti Van, being driven in high speed which had hit Honey Kumar. The said vehicle was taken into possession on 18.5.1998 by the police vide memo Ex.PC. In his cross- examination, he has further stated that he had seen the driver and could identify him, but further stated that Sachin and Uttam, who were present on the spot, assisting the deceased in pumping air to the tyres of bicycle did not disclose to him as to who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. He has blown hot and cold with the same breath and has materially contradicted himself.

(3.) ON the critical examination of the aforesaid evidence, the investigation appears to be quite faulty and statements of prosecution witnesses are contradictory. Identity of the respondent is not established beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid evidence which produces two views, the respondent cannot be convicted. Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons, I concur with the net result arrived at by the learned trial court for acquitting the respondent. Accordingly, the impugned judgment requires no interference.