Back
2009 Supreme(HP) 147
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER SINGH, J.
STATE OF H.P.
Appellant
VERSUS
PREM NATH MITTAL
Respondent
Cr.MP (M) No. 121 of 2009
Decided on 13-3-2009.
For the Appellant:Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. For Respondent: None.
The prosecution must prove the identity and connection of the accused to the alleged crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
Headnote:
Acquittal - Hit and Run Case - Failure to Prove Identity
Fact of the Case:
The accused was acquitted in a hit and run case where the prosecution alleged that the complainant was hit by a Centro Car and suffered injuries, but the accused's identity and connection to the incident were not proven.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the respondent due to the absence of clinching evidence and the inability of the injured complainant to recognize the driver. The court examined the judgment of the trial court and concluded that there was no cogent ground to grant leave to appeal, thus dismissing the petition in limine.
Issues: Identity of the accused, absence of clinching evidence, failure of the prosecution to prove the case
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of evidence connecting the respondent to the hit and run incident, as well as the inability of the injured complainant to recognize the driver or provide substantial evidence.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed in limine due to the prosecution's failure to prove the case against the respondent.
Surinder Singh, J. (Oral):- Heard.
2. The accused was acquitted by the learned trial Court in criminal case No. 154/2 of 2006/02 under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, on the point of his identity.
3. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 15.7.2001, complainant Raj Kumar was alleged to have been hit by a Centro Car at about 9 a.m. while he was going on foot near Bus Stand Parwanoo and suffered injuries on his leg. The car fled away from the spot. He was removed to E.S.I. Hospital by his friend Anu. The complainant lodged the FIR wherein he stated that a silver colour Centro Car PB-10-1040 had caused the accident. The registration number was alleged to have been disclosed to him by Ajay PW-3. Lateron the said car was taken into possession by the police from Ludhiana after about three months vide memo Ext. PW-4/A.
4. During the investigation of this case, the police took the entries of the Barrier into possession in order to find out the movement of the said car in the area of Kasauli on the said date.
5. After completing the investigation, the challan was presented in the court for trial of the respondent under Sections 279, 337,338 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. The respondent was put to trial. At the end of trial, he was acquitted on the ground of his identity and absence of clinching evidence that it was same car which had entered Kasauli/Parwanoo on the said date.
7. I have examined the judgment of learned trial court. Admittedly, it was a case of hit and run and the injured complaint could not recognize the driver. Although PW-3 Ajay Kumar in his cross-examination has categorically stated that the said car was taken into possession by the police from Ludhiana but he could not say that the respondent was driving the vehicle in question on the day when the accident took place. There is no other evidence on record to connect the respondent.
8. Thus in the totality of the circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the respondent. Therefore, in my opinion, there is no cogent ground to grant the leave to appeal, therefore, the petition is dismissed in limine.
