JUDGMENT Surinder Singh, J. Respondent was acquitted by the learned trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A Indian Penal Code. State has challenged the acquitted of the respondent by filing the present appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. 3. In short, the prosecution story can be stated thus. On 28.10.2001 complainant Mir Mohammad was driving the Scooter on the high-way. He was only having learner’s license. The deceased Anwar Hussain his son was a pillion rider. Around 10 a.m. Respondent who was allegedly driving the tractor-trolley bearing registration No. HP36-1754, came from behind and hit the scooter at its back with the result, pillion rider fell down and he was crushed under the rear tyre of the tractor trolley. The tractor driver fled-away from the spot. 4. The matter was reported to the police. As per the complainant, tractor trolley belonged to one Joginder Singh. The statement of Mir Mohammad was recorded under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which culminated into the present FIR. 5. Police prepared the site plan and got the tractor-trolley mechanically examined from PW1 Shri Arun Kumar Sethi, a Mechanic. He issued his report Ext. PW1/B. Police recorded the statements of the witnesses, and found the involvement of the respondent in the instant case. As such challan was presented against the respondent in the Court for his trial. 6. Respondent was accordingly charge sheeted for the aforesaid offences and after the complete trial, acquitted him on the ground of identification. 7. PW3 Mir Mohammad whose son was involved in the accident is the sole eye witness of the alleged incident. In examination-in-chief he stated that after the incident, driver of the tractor had fled-away and he could not see him. He was declared hostile and cross examined by the learned Public Prosecutor after seeking permission from the Court, then he admitted the suggestion that the respondent was the driver. Again in the cross examination, he stated that he did not recognize the accused whether he was driving the tractor at the relevant time. He was declared hostile and cross examined by the learned Public Prosecutor after seeking permission from the Court, then he admitted the suggestion that the respondent was the driver. Again in the cross examination, he stated that he did not recognize the accused whether he was driving the tractor at the relevant time. Though he stated that the tractor in question belonged to one Joginder Singh but Joginder Singh was also not examined in order to establish that on the day of the alleged incident, respondent was deputed driver in the said tractor trolley or not. 8. PW5 Satish Kumar in whose presence the driving license and the documents of the tractor were taken into possession stated that at that time respondent was not present nor he knew him. 9. The Investigating officer PW7 ASI Raghubir Singh stated that he also did not inquire about the owner of the tractor trolley. He further stated that Mir Mohammad complainant was only having learner license and he did not know whether he could have taken his son as pillion rider on the highway. 10. Except this, there is nothing on record to connect the respondent with the alleged offence and in his statement under Section 313 of the code of Criminal Procedure also denied that at the relevant time, he was driving the tractor in question. 11. On the scrutiny of the aforesaid evidence, I find the evidence of the prosecution to connect the respondent with the alleged offence is lacking. As such the acquittal of the respondent passed by the learned trial Court cannot be interfered with. Thus, appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. Respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him at any stage during the proceedings of this case.