State of Himachal Pradesh vs Imran

Surinder Singh, J.—The acquittal of the respondent in Criminal Case No. 35/2 of 2003, decided on 27.04.2005, by the learned trial Court, has been assailed in the present appeal.

Heard and gone through the record.

In short the prosecution story is that on 11.1.2003, complainant Mahesh Chand, on his return from Bara Chowk, Nahan around 12.45 pm, reached Chogan near Punjab National Bank, in the meantime, a car (Tata Indica) bearing No. UA-07-6115, which was allegedly being driven by the respondent, hit him from his back with the result he fell down, sustained injuries and became unconscious. From there, he was lifted to his house by his brother PW5 and then taken to the hospital. The Police was informed. They took into possession Tata Indica car aforesaid. It was got mechanically examined and the respondent was stated to have consumed liquor at the relevant time. He was got medically examined. The documents of the vehicle were taken into possession. On completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court for the trail of the respondent.

The respondent was accordingly charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

To prove its case, the prosecution examined its witnesses and the respondent was also examined u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He denied the accident and maintained innocence. No evidence in defence was led. The learned trial Court acquitted the respondent on the ground of identification.

I have reappraised the evidence on record. PW2 Mahesh Chand, injured, testified having been hit by a car from back, but he could not recognize its driver. PW5 Arvind Kumar is the brother of the injured, who is alleged to have taken the injured to his house and then to the hospital. Even he did not say anything that the said accident took place in his presence. According to him he had only seen the respondent in the Police Station when the car in question was taken into possession.

PW4 Dimple is the star witness in whose presence the accident had taken place. Even in his cross-examination he stated that he could not recognize the driver of the vehicle. PW8 Head Constable Om Parkash stated that the name of the respondent was disclosed by the complainant to him, which fact stands not corroborated by PW1. Once the identification of the respondent is not established and is doubtful, he cannot be convicted for the offences charged. Therefore, the acquittal of the respondent cannot be faulted with as it is borne out from the evidence on record. The appeal is without merit, hence dismissed.

The respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him at any stage during the proceedings of this case.