JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. (Oral) - State of Punjab has filed the present appeal against the impugned judgment of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar dated 13.5.1991 vide which respondent Balbir Singh has been acquitted of charge under Sections 279/304-A Indian Penal Code. 2. In short the case of the prosecution is that on 27.5.1987, ASI Manmohan Singh accompanied by other police officials was present at Lamapind in connection with general patrolling when Satwant Singh PW5 (complainant) met him and lodged report to the effect that he alongwith his servant Joginder Yadav (since deceased) had been coming to village Lamapind in connection with his domestic work and after getting free, they were taking rest underneath the trolley of the tractor. It is then alleged that a bus No. PJQ-2280 being driven by the respondent came from the side of PAP Lines, Jalandhar. It hit the tractor trolley as a result of which Joginder Yadav came down under the tyre of trolley and died at the spot. 3. On these allegations, the present case was registered under sections 279/304-A Indian Penal Code. Investigation was done by ASI Manmohan Singh (not produced by the prosecution) and after investigation, challan was filed against the respondent to face trial. 4. A charge under section 279/304-A Indian Penal Code was framed against the respondent by the trial court. 5. The prosecution in support of its case has produced Constable Mann Singh PW1, Satnam Singh PW2, Head Constable Bikramjit Singh PW3, Sant Singh PW4, Satwant Singh PW5. The stand taken by the respondent as emerges from the statement under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code is that he pleaded false implication in this case. However, he did not led any defence evidence. 6. After appreciating the entire evidence, the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent. 7. I have heard Mr. Sandeep Jain, learned Assistant Advocate General, for the State of Punjab and Mr. TPS Mann, learned counsel for the respondent. With their assistance, I have also gone through the entire evidence. 8. Mr. Jain vehemently contends that there is cogent evidence on the file to show that the respondent was rash and negligent in driving and consequently caused the death of Joginder Yadav in this case. He then contends that the learned trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence. 9. Refuting the arguments advanced by the State counsel, Mr. 8. Mr. Jain vehemently contends that there is cogent evidence on the file to show that the respondent was rash and negligent in driving and consequently caused the death of Joginder Yadav in this case. He then contends that the learned trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence. 9. Refuting the arguments advanced by the State counsel, Mr. Mann submits that there is no infirmity on any count in the impugned judgment of acquittal which is well reasoned one. 10. After hearing the rival contentions of both the sides, I am of the view that the present appeal filed by the State fails. My reasons are set out as under :- 11. The star witnesses of the prosecution are PW4 Sant Singh and PW5 Satwant Singh. I have once against rescanned their statements. They have not said a word that the respondent was driving the bus in question rashly or negligently. This was the reason which weighed in the mind of trial court for extending the benefit of doubt to the respondent. I do not find any infirmity on this count. Another material fact which goes deep to the core in the instant case is that even the Investigating Officer in the instant case has not been examined which is a serious infirmity. Many documents, thus, have not been proved. In totality it can be summed up that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home guilt to the respondent. The judgment of acquittal is, thus, upheld. Resultantly, the present appeal fails being devoid of any merit. Appeal dismissed.