JUDGMENT Surinder Singh, J.(Oral)-Respondent was tried and acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, in FIR No.201/2001, registered in Police Station Sadar Nahan, mainly on the point of identification. The acquittal of the respondent has been challenged in this appeal, by the State. 2. In short, the prosecution story can be stated thus. On 27th September, 2001, the respondent was allegedly the driver of truck No.HP-17-4496, owned by PW2 Gurdeep Singh. It was loaded with the cement. Around 11.05 p.m., when it reached near Ambwala, the said truck hit the scooter bearing registration No.HR-04-7452 coming from opposite side, which was being driven by Umesh Kumar (deceased). PW3 Sanjeev Kumar and PW5 Pawan Kumar, both were pillion riders. On account of the said accident, Umesh Kumar scooterist died on the spot, whereas, aforesaid pillion riders sustained grievous injuries. Police was informed by someone. 3. PW9 Inspector/ SHO K.S. Pathania reached the spot, got extracted the two injured persons, who were entrapped under the tyres of the truck. In the meantime, an ambulance, which was passing by was stopped and the injured persons were removed to the hospital. The driver of the truck and its cleaner were not found on the spot. 4. Dead body of Umesh Kumar was sent for autopsy. Next day, PW2 Gurdeep Singh, the owner of the truck came to know about the accident from the respondent, as stated by him. He produced the documents of the truck to the police and sought its release from the Court. 5. The respondent was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences. He abjured the guilt and claimed trial. 6. To prove its case, prosecution examined two injured PW3 Sanjeev Kumar and PW5 Pawan Kumar aforesaid, the owner of the truck PW2 Gurdeep Singh and also the Investigating Officer Inspector/ SHO K.S. Pathania, besides examining other formal witnesses. At the end of the trial, respondent was acquitted. 7. Heard and gone through the record. 8. Neither PW3 Sanjeev Kumar nor PW5 Pawan Kumar, pillion riders have anywhere stated that the respondent was the driver of the truck at the relevant time. It was dark, they did not know who was driving the said truck. At the end of the trial, respondent was acquitted. 7. Heard and gone through the record. 8. Neither PW3 Sanjeev Kumar nor PW5 Pawan Kumar, pillion riders have anywhere stated that the respondent was the driver of the truck at the relevant time. It was dark, they did not know who was driving the said truck. According to PW3 Sanjeev Kumar, he came to know later in the hospital from a policeman that it was respondent, whereas PW5 Pawan Kumar Stated that he was informed by PW3 Sanjeev Kumar that the driver at the relevant time, was the respondent. PW3 did not name the police man nor there is any explanation how police came to know that respondent was driving the truck at the relevant time. Prosecution relied upon the statement of owner of the truck (PW2), who has four trucks including the present one, wherein four drivers are employed. According to him, the driver in the alleged offending vehicle was the respondent. Except this, there is no other evidence. The police has also taken in possession G.R. of the consignment of the said offending truck, but no verification was made from the barrier through which it crossed nor from the office where from the truck was loaded. 9. The material evidence in this case was the log book of the truck, which has neither taken into possession nor produced or proved by the prosecution during the trial of this case. Even the cleaner of the truck was not examined which, in my opinion, could have been the best witness. 10. In these circumstances, the acquittal of the respondent, by giving him the benefit of doubt by the learned trial court, is reasonable. Therefore, the appeal is without any merit, as such dismissed. 11. The respondent is discharged of the bail bonds entered upon by him at any stage during the produces of the case. 12. The matter stands disposed of.