Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 149 (HP)

STATE OF H. P. v. PREM NATH MITTAL

2009-03-13

SURINDER SINGH

body2009
JUDGMENT Surinder Singh, J. (Oral):- Heard. 2. The accused was acquitted by the learned trial Court in criminal case No. 154/2 of 2006/02 under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, on the point of his identity. 3. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 15.7.2001, complainant Raj Kumar was alleged to have been hit by a Centro Car at about 9 a.m. while he was going on foot near Bus Stand Parwanoo and suffered injuries on his leg. The car fled away from the spot. He was removed to E.S.I. Hospital by his friend Anu. The complainant lodged the FIR wherein he stated that a silver colour Centro Car PB-10-1040 had caused the accident. The registration number was alleged to have been disclosed to him by Ajay PW-3. Lateron the said car was taken into possession by the police from Ludhiana after about three months vide memo Ext. PW-4/A. 4. During the investigation of this case, the police took the entries of the Barrier into possession in order to find out the movement of the said car in the area of Kasauli on the said date. 5. After completing the investigation, the challan was presented in the court for trial of the respondent under Sections 279, 337,338 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. The respondent was put to trial. At the end of trial, he was acquitted on the ground of his identity and absence of clinching evidence that it was same car which had entered Kasauli/Parwanoo on the said date. 7. I have examined the judgment of learned trial court. Admittedly, it was a case of hit and run and the injured complaint could not recognize the driver. Although PW-3 Ajay Kumar in his cross-examination has categorically stated that the said car was taken into possession by the police from Ludhiana but he could not say that the respondent was driving the vehicle in question on the day when the accident took place. There is no other evidence on record to connect the respondent. 8. Thus in the totality of the circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the respondent. Therefore, in my opinion, there is no cogent ground to grant the leave to appeal, therefore, the petition is dismissed in limine.