State of Himachal Pradesh vs Gaurav Kumar

Surinder Singh, J.—The instant petition has been moved for seeking leave to appeal against the acquittal of the respondent passed by the learned trial Court in Criminal Case No. 81-II/2009 dated 29th April, 2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 336 of the Indian Penal Code.

It is alleged that on 25th April, 2009 at about 1.00 a.m., a pick-up tralla bearing registration No. HP-68-2093 came in a high speed from Dharamshala side and hit Santro Car bearing registration No. HP-39A-9618 and then collided with shutters of shops and then hit scooty No. HP-39A-6332. Immediately after the accident the driver fled away from the scene of alleged occurrence. The owner of Santro Car PW-1 Raj Kumar reported the matter to the police. His statement u/s 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. The police took the photographs, prepared the site plan and took into possession the alleged offending vehicle, which was owned by PW-5 Rajesh Rana.

Later the driving license of the respondent was taken into possession. On the completion of the Challan, the police found involvement of the respondent for the aforesaid offences, as such, the Challan was presented in the Court for his trial and he was accordingly charge-sheeted. He denied the allegations against him and claimed trial.

During trial of the case, prosecution examined as much as six witnesses. PW-2 Saroop Chand the alleged eye witness has turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. He could not identify the respondent.

Further, complainant PW-1 Raj Kumar also admitted that he had not seen the person who was driving the jeep-Tralla aforesaid nor the police got conducted any identification of the driver. Similarly, the statement of PW-3 Jagdish Chand categorically stated that he did not see the driver of the alleged offending vehicle. PW-4 Ranjit Singh is only the witness with respect to the seizure of the documents. PW-5 Rajesh Rana stated that Ajay Kumar was the driver of his vehicle. He did not see the respondent to drive the vehicle. Except PW-6 ASI Balbir Singh no other witness stated that Gaurav Kumar is also alias Ajay Kumar. However, the driving license of the respondent does not refer his name by alias. Thus, the statement of the Investigating Officer does not inspire confidence in view of the testimonies of the other witnesses discussed above.

It is a settled law that an important ingredient of rash and negligent driving for the offence u/s 279 of the Indian Penal Code is the identity of the accused and in the absence of any identity of the accused he could not be convicted for the offence charged.

The learned trial Court has taken the note of the above fact and consequently the respondent was acquitted. I do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment. Therefore, the leave to appeal is refused. Judgment of the learned trial Court is upheld.