The prosecution must establish the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the chain of evidence connecting the accused to the alleged offense must be complete.

Mukta Gupta, J.

1. By the present petition the Petitioner seeks setting aside of the order dated 7th November, 2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge upholding the order of conviction of the Petitioner passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 11th April, 2005 under Sections 279/337/304-A IPC and order on sentence dated 20th April, 2005. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 20th April, 2005 sentenced the Petitioner to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year for offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC and a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months, a fine of Rs. 1000/- for offences punishable under Section 279 IPC in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month and a fine of Rs.500/- for offence punishable under Section 337 IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month.

2. Briefly the prosecution case is that on 28th September, 1994 at about 4.45 p.m. at T-Point, IGI Airport, near Centaur Hotel, the Petitioner was driving Truck bearing No.DEL 2133 in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and safety of others and while doing so he hits his truck against two wheeler scooter bearing No. HYT 2521 and thereby caused death of one Hari Lal and grievous injuries to Shri Bhagwan. Accordingly FIR was registered under Sections 279/338/304-A IPC. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate after recording the prosecution evidence and statement of the accused, convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the judgment and order on sentence, the Petitioner preferred an appeal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 7th September, 2007 dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and order on sentence passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.

3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the impugned judgments are based on conjectures and surmises. Learned courts below failed to appreciate the fact that despite examining 11 witnesses including one alleged eye witness and one injured witness, there is no evidence on record against the Petitioner. Learned courts below while passing the impugned judgments failed to appreciate that the investigating officer PW4 was not produced by the prosecution for cross-examination causing prejudice to the Petitioner. There are contradictions in the statement of this witness which discredits his testimony. The truck number mentioned in the FIR, the recovery memo and the mechanical inspection report is also incorrect. There are contradictions in the testimony of PW3 and the investigating officer. PW3 Jai Naresh has deposed that the deceased expired on the next day of the incident, that is, 29th September, 1994 however the deceased actually died on 2nd October, 1994, which fact has been proved by the testimony of PW9 and PW10. The doctor, who treated the deceased, has not been examined by the prosecution. There is no evidence placed on record to prove that the offending vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. In view of the discrepancies in the prosecution version and uncorroborated testimony of the witnesses the prosecution has not been able to prove its case. Thus, in the absence of any evidence to support the Prosecution story and the fact that the Petitioner was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, the impugned judgments are liable to be set aside.

4. Per contra learned APP for the State submits that impugned judgments suffer from no illegality. PW 6 Shri Bhagwan and PW3 Jai Naresh have fully supported the prosecution case and deposed that the offending vehicle was being driven by the Petitioner in a rash and negligent manner. The Petitioner in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has admitted that at the time of incident he was driving the offending vehicle and his defence is only a simple den