V.K. AHUJA, J.

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the State of H.P. against the judgment of the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur District at Nahan dated 14.10.2003 vide which the respondents were acquitted of the notice of accusation put up to them for offences punishable under Section 279, 304-A and 201 IPC.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on receipt of information regarding an accident, the police officer went to the spot on 14.11.2000 at about 3.45 P.M. and recorded the statement of one Ram Singh under Section 154 Cr.P.C. He had alleged that at about 2.00 P.M. he along with his wife had come back from Dadahu in a private vehicle and got down at Dhanoi Pul. He alleged that one bus HP-17A-9187 came from Dadahu side and the passengers got down from the said bus. One of the passengers who got down from the bus was carrying luggage on his back and suddenly the bus driver reversed the vehicle and the rear side of the vehicle hit the said person who fell in the Khud. He along with his wife Tara Devi raised an alarm but the bus driver Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes alongwith the conductor of the bus drove the bus towards Dadahu side. The said person was taken out of the Khad whose name was learnt as Suiya Ram, who suffered injuries and had died. It was alleged that the accident took place due to rash or negligent driving of the driver and the negligence of the Conductor also. On this report, a case was registered and after investigation, challan was filed as against the respondents who were tried by the learned trial Court and on conclusion of the trial, both the respondents were acquitted of the charge of accusation put up to them for the Sections detailed above.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

(4.) On appraisal of the evidence led by the prosecution, which consists of the statement of seven witnesses, it is clear that the statements of PW-1 Ram Singh and PW-2 Smt. Tara Devi his wife can be said to be most material. PW-1 Ram Singh has stated that they had got down from the bus at Dhanoi Pul and other passengers including the deceased had also got down from the said bus. The deceased was carrying a bag of wheat and the bus driver was turning the bus which hit him from its rear portion who fell down in the Khud and the driver and the conductor did not stop the bus and ran away from the spot along with the bus. He learnt about the name of the deceased later on as Suiya and stated that he lodged the report Ex.PW-1/A with the police. He also stated that the accident took place due to rash or negligent driving of the driver and the conductor of the bus. He stated that he learnt the names of the driver and the conductor of the bus subsequently but did not identify them in the Court as the same persons who were the driver and conductor of the bus involved in the accident.

(5.) In cross-examination, he specifically stated that he cannot identity the driver or the conductor in the Court. He stated that their names were told outside by Naib Court. He has stated that other passengers had also got down and he even remembered the names of some of them but none of these passengers had been examined by the prosecution. He also stated that colour of the bus was green and red. He admitted that there was a Renuka fair and many buses were coming after 2-3 minutes. He neither stated about the number of the bus, the names of the driver and conductor nor identified the said driver and conductor in the Court. He denied his knowledge that one Jaipal was present at the spot who had seen the deceased falling from the Dhank, but the said Jai Pal has not been examined by the prosecution.

(6.) PW-2 Smt. Tara Devi wife of PW-1 Ram Singh has stated that she came in a private bus and another bus came after that from which the passengers got down, though her husband PW-1 Ram Singh has stated that they had got down from the bus from which the deceased also got down but she has stated that both the buses were different. One person got down while the bus was taking turn and the driver and the conductor ran away along with the bus. She gave the number of bus as HP-17-A 9187 and stated that she subsequently learnt about the names of driver and conductor of the bus as Tota Ram and Surender, respectively. She stated that the accident took place due to the rash or negligent driving of the driver and the conductor. She again stated in cross- examination that she and her husband were in the bus which had hit the deceased and they had come in another bus. She stated that the names of the driver and the conductor were told to her by her husband on the next day though her husband while appearing as PW-1 stated that their names were learnt by him on that day only outside the Court. She stated about the colour of the bus being red and white which is contrary to PW-1 who has stated that it was red and green. She admitted that many buses were coming on the road because of Renuka fair. She denied that the deceased was under the influence of liquor and admitted that that he was standing on the road side. She denied that she has deposed falsely so that the heirs of the deceased get compensation.

(7.) During investigation, Investigating Officer PW-5 ASI Balak Ram had taken in possession all the documents of the vehicle. It had come up in evidence that the bus was not to ply on the road crossing the place of accident and a special permit might have been got issued by the owner but the same was not taken in possession. The learned trial Court had rightly observed that even if the special permit had not been issued, the possibility if this bus had come to the area to carry the mela passengers cannot be ruled out and that evidence in itself is not conclusive that it was the bus involved in the accident or as to who were the driver and the conductor of the bus at the time of accident.

(8.) The owner of the bus PW-7 Sandhya Devi admitted that the bus belonged to her and that the driver and the conductor of the bus were the respondents. However, this in itself does not prove that the bus was being driven by the driver respondent No.1 or that respondent No.2 was the conductor of the bus.

(9.) From the above discussion, it is clear that one person had died in the accident but this in itself is no proof of alleged rash driving of the driver or the negligence of the conductor of the bus and t

heir identity had to be established by the prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt that they were the driver and the conductor of the bus which was involved in the accident for which there is no evidence on record. On mere presumption, the respondents cannot be held guilty of the offence and convicted. (10.) In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that the findings of the learned trial Court holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference from this Court. (11.) In view of above discussion, there is not merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds, if any, stands discharged.