SANJAY KAROL, J.

(1.) For an offence, which is alleged to have been committed on 21.2.2003, accused was put to trial. In terms of judgment dated 22.10.2003 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class(I), Dharamshala, in Crl. Case No.23-II of 2003, titled as State of H.P. vs. Sanjay Kumar, the accused stands acquitted of the charged offence.

(2.) It is the case of the prosecution that on 21.2.2003 at about 6.45 p.m., accused Sanjay Kumar was driving vehicle bearing No. HP-02-5879 on a public highway at a place known as Rehlu. The said vehicle was allegedly being driven in a rash and negligent manner as a result of which the vehicle hit the complainant Smt. Sonal Nag (PW-2). Due to the accident she suffered simple injuries. PW-2 was taken to the hospital by Smt. Veena Devi (PW-3) and Sh. Varinder Singh (PW-4) for medical treatment where her statement (Ext.PW-2/A) was recorded by the police. Rukka was prepared and sent from the hospital on the basis of which F.I.R. dated 21.2.2003 (Ext.PW-7/A) under Sections 279, 337 IPC and 184 of the Motor Vehicle Act was registered with Police Station, Shahpur. The complainant was got medically examined by Dr. Mohan Chaudhary (PW-1) and her MLC (Ext.PW-1/A) was obtained by the police.

(3.) With the completion of the investigation the challan was presented in the Court for trial. Notice of accusation was issued to the accused for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 IPC and 184 of the Motor Vehicle Act to which the accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.PC was also recorded. The Court below acquitted the accused of the charged offences. Hence the present appeal.

(4.) There is no doubt that PW-2 suffered injuries on her body. The same stands proved from the testimony of Dr. Mohan Chaudhary (PW-1) as also MLC (Ext.PW-1/A). The question however is as to whether the said injuries were suffered only as a result of the alleged accident and as to whether the accused had been negligent. Even according to the Doctor the said injuries could have been sustained due to fall.

(5.) The incident is alleged to have been witnessed by PW- 2 and PW-3 who were standing on the road and were talking with each other. According to the complainant white colour jeep came at high speed and hit her. The driver of the jeep fled away with the vehicle from the spot. She fell down on the road and sustained injuries. Her neighbours PW-3 and PW-4 took her to the hospital. The version of PW-3 is also to this extent. But however none of these witnesses could conclusively prove that at the relevant time, in fact the jeep was being driven by the accused. (6.) The statement of PW-3 with regard to the identification of the accused is also shaky. No doubt in her examination-in- chief she has stated that the vehicle was being driven by the accused present in the Court but in her cross-examination she has also admitted that she does not know the driver of the jeep. In fact she has given a different version by stating that the offending vehicle was in fact caught by PW-4. She could not clearly state the colour with which the numbers were written on the jeep. Now admittedly no test identification parade was conducted. Hence it would not be safe to rely upon the statements of the witnesses to hold the accused guilty of the alleged offence in the absence of any clear, cogent and convincing material only pointing towards the guilt of the accused.

(7.) Further, Sh. Varinder Singh (PW-4) has come out with the version which is quite unconvincing. According to him, he had caught the jeep at a distance of 2 kms. from the spot. He otherwise admits that he heard the cries of his mother who had been injured. How did he travel for a distance of 2 kms. has not been explained. According to PW-2 she was taken to the hospital by PW-4 also. There is thus contradiction in the version of the prosecution witnesses.

(8.) The Investigating Agency has been tardy in carrying out the investigation. The vehicle in question was impounded only after a period of 6 days as stands admitted by ASI Kailash Chand (PW-11).

(9.) The accused has had the advantage of having bee

n acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down in Mohammed Ankoos and others vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, (2010) 1 SCC 94, it cannot be said that the Court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the person has resulted into travesty of justice. No ground for interference is called for. The present appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged.