JUDGMENT : Anoop Chitkara, J. Challenging the acquittal of respondent/accused for causing death due to rash and negligent act on a public road, the State has come up before this Court by filing appeal under Section 378 of the Cr.PC. 2. On 17.3.2007 Medical Officer of Sub Divisional Hospital, Palampur informed the Police Station that a girl has been brought to the hospital, who had received injuries in an accident but when she was brought to the hospital she was already dead. The said information was recorded in Daily Diary, Ext. PW4/A, and Investigator proceeded towards the hospital. 3. The Investigator recorded the statement of Om Prakash (PW1) father of the victim that Kumari Sakshi was his daughter. He stated that he runs a Tea Shop at Thakurdwara. On 17.3.2007 at around 8:30 in the morning, his daughter had visited his shop along with her grandfather, Jaisi Ram, (PW3). When she was returning her home along with her grandfather and was crossing the road, then a Tempo came from Palampur side in a very fast speed and hit his daughter. The vehicle ran over his daughter and fled away. Despite their raising noise, the driver did not stop his vehicle. After that he along with his father ran towards the spot, carried his daughter and brought her to the hospital. On examination, the doctor declared his daughter ‘brought dead’. The informant also stated that he has inquired at his own level and came to know that the name of the driver was Subhash Chand and number of his vehicle was HR-37-3295. This information was recorded in Rukka, Ext. PW5/A, which led to registration of FIR captioned above. The police got conducted the postmortem examination, Ext. PB, and the cause of death was declared ‘due to accident’. The police arrested the accused and conducted further investigation and seized tempo. After completion of investigation, the police filed report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. 4. Vide order dated 29.11.2007, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Palampur issued ‘Notice of Accusation’ to the accused for commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC and 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 5. The prosecution examined father of the deceased, Om Prakash, as (PW1), a passerby Sh. Jagdish Raj as PW2 and Sh. Jaisi Ram, grandfather of the deceased as PW3. The accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 5. The prosecution examined father of the deceased, Om Prakash, as (PW1), a passerby Sh. Jagdish Raj as PW2 and Sh. Jaisi Ram, grandfather of the deceased as PW3. The prosecution had also examined Mechanic and Investigating Officer. 6. In statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.PC accused admitted that he was driving his tempo on 17.3.2007 at 8:30 am at Thakurdwara and also admitted that his vehicle was involved with the accident but he stated that he was not driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, in fact, a girl suddenly came in the middle of the road, which led to accident. Accused did not lead any evidence in defence. 7. Vide judgment mentioned above, learned trial court did not find the evidence of the prosecution as convincing and dismissed the prosecution, thereby acquitted the accused by discharging him of the aforesaid offences. 8. Challenging the acquittal, the State came up before this court by filing an appeal under Section 378 (3) of Cr.PC. ANALYSES AND REASONING. 9. As per the earliest report mentioned in the statement recorded under section 154 Cr.PC i.e. Ext. PW1/A father of the victim, Om Prakash (PW1), had explicitly stated the following facts: (a) That his daughter along with his father were turning home from his shop; (b) That his daughter was crossing the road along with his father; (c) That suddenly a tempo came in a high speed and hit his daughter and it ran over her; (d) That he along with his father run towards the spot and lifted his daughter and carried her to the hospital; and (e) The accused did not stop the vehicle and fled away. 10. In the statement recored on oath (PW1) stated that after hitting his daughter the tempo stopped at a distance of 50 feet. In the cross examination he admitted that he did not notice the tempo hitting his daughter, thus this person did not see the occurrence from his eyes but his attention was drawn to the impact caused by the tempo. As per earliest version of PW1 recorded under Section 154 of Cr.PC, on seeing his daughter being crushed by the truck he along with his father ran towards the spot. As per earliest version of PW1 recorded under Section 154 of Cr.PC, on seeing his daughter being crushed by the truck he along with his father ran towards the spot. It implies that his daughter was not with his father, which means that his daughter was crossing the road at her own. 11. PW2 Jagdish Raj stated that the vehicle came in high speed and hit a girl. In cross examination he stated the girl was holding the finger of her grandfather. Now this statement was contradicted by none-else than by the father of the deceased. Furthermore, in earlier statement, PW1, did not mention that any passerby had seen the incident. This contradiction establishes that the police had introduced this witness to show him as an independent witness. Thus no reliance can be placed in his testimony. 12. The grandfather of the deceased, PW3, Jaisi Ram, testified that when he was returning home along with his granddaughter, then tempo vehicle came in a high speed and hit his granddaughter. In his cross-examination he admitted that he was walking ahead of his granddaughter, who was walking behind him. He also admitted that at that time he was holding the hands of his granddaughter. Analyses of this witness clearly points out that PW3, Jaisi Ram, was walking ahead of his granddaughter, who was a young girl, aged just 3 years. Thus a toddler was on the road without any assistance of any adult. It is clear from the earliest version of PW1 that when accident took place, he along with his father ran towards the spot. This proves that grandfather was not with the toddler at the time of accident, as she was not walking with him. Furthermore, his specific stand that he was not even holding her hand would have made a 3 year old toddler, vulnerable to traffic. 13. Given above the stand taken by the accused in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.PC that all of a sudden a girl came in the middle of the road appears to be plausible. Consequently, there is noting to infer that accused was responsible for such an accident and as such he was entitled for benefit of doubt. 14. 13. Given above the stand taken by the accused in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.PC that all of a sudden a girl came in the middle of the road appears to be plausible. Consequently, there is noting to infer that accused was responsible for such an accident and as such he was entitled for benefit of doubt. 14. In view of above discussion, the prosecution neither proved that the accident took place because of rash and negligent act of the driver nor the tempo bearing No. HR-37-3295, which the accused was driving, is connected with the said accident. I have also gone through the judgment under challenge which is a well reasoned. 15. Resultantly, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. The bail bonds are accordingly discharged. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.