JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, “Cr.P.C.”) is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 03.07.2015 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate-03 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi in connection with FIR No. 74/2002 registered at Police Station IP Estate, Delhi for offence punishable under Sections 279/304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (In short, “IPC”).

2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 07.03.2002, Head Constable Sunil Kumar (“Complainant”) was on duty at Anti Snatching Point alongwith Constable Ombir (PW-6) and at about 5:45 PM, he saw that one person was crossing the road from Ambedkar Stadium towards LNJP Hospital. At that time one Dak Van No. DL-l-LB-0735 (“offending vehicle”) came from the side of ITO, BSZ Marg towards Delhi Gate and hit against that pedestrian who had reached in the middle of the road. They rushed towards the spot and found that injured had sustained injuries on his head resulting in his death. The complainant (PW-1) handed over the custody of the accused/driver of the offending van to PW-6 and went to LNJP Hospital alongwith the injured. In the hospital MLC of injured was prepared and the statement of the complainant was recorded. Later on, after reaching the spot, the offending vehicle was taken into possession. At the complaint of the complainant, the present case was registered and after completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against Azad Singh (“accused”) for the offence under Sections 279/304-A of the IPC. Thereafter, accused was summoned and notice was served upon the accused for offence under Sections 279/304A of the IPC.

3. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The learned trial court after appreciating the entire evidence and material available on record, acquitted the respondent/accused. Hence, the State is in appeal.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/State submits that the impugned order is based on conjectures and is against the facts and law. According to him, the learned trial court failed to appreciate the testimony of two eye-witnesses, who have duly given their evidence and supported the case of the prosecution including one of them having identified the accused as well as offending vehicle even during the cross-examination on 03.12.2010. The learned trial court further failed to appreciate that PW-6 in his evidence stated that the deceased was hit by the vehicle in question which was being driven at a high speed. The minor difference in the statement of the complainant and (PW-6) regarding the volume of traffic on road or whether the deceased was running or walking on the road at the time of the incident, should not have been considered as major inconsistencies.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/accused vehemently opposed the submissions and submitted that the offences have not been committed by the respondent/accused and, therefore, the learned trial court has rightly acquitted him. He submitted that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has considered all the submissions made by the respondent/accused, and the evidence led by the appellant which are not sufficient evidence to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. The prosecution has examined eleven witnesses to prove the charges against the respondent/accused out of which PW-1 and PW-10 are the only two eye-witnesses. The accused examined two defence witnesses :-