MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, J.- The petitioner has assailed the impugned judgment dated 2.11.1992 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat whereby appeal filed by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence under sections 279, 429 PPC to undergo one year R.I. In each of the offence and under section 429 P.P.C, a i.e of Rs. 5000/- or in default two months S.I. Passed by Judicial magistrate Kharian dated 29.1.92, was dismissed, out of the i.e, the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 4000/- to the complainant as compensation.
2. The petitioner was challaned in case FIR No. 310/90 dated 5.6.90 registered at Police Station Sarsi-Alamgir under sections 279, 429 P.P.C, on the complaint of Ali Khan PW1.
3. Charge under sections 279,429 PPC was framed against the petitioner to which he denied and claimed trial.
4. Prosecution examined 6 P.Ws, in all to substantiate its case. PW1 Ali Khan complainant corroborated the contens of the FIR Ex.PD and had stated that the petitioner while driving Truck rashly and negligently had killed his 13 sheep. PW2 Alam Khan had stated that the Truck reached on High speed and ran over the sheep and 13 sheep were killed. PW3 Adam Khan had stated that the Truck reached near Canal bridge of Sarsi Alamgir and was coming at high speed front the side of mandi Bahauddin, ran over the sheep, 13 of them were killed. PW4 Gul Khan had stated that the Police secured the Truck PI vide memo. Ex.PB attested by him. PW5 Malik Bashir Ahmad, AS1 is the Investigating Officer who after completion of investigation challaned the petitioner.
5. The petitioner when examined under section 342 Cr.P.C, denied the prosecution evidence and claimed innocence. The learned trial Court vide its impugned judgment dated 29.1.92 after evaluating the evidence convicted and sentenced the petitioner.
6. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 'vehemently argued that no case is made out from reading the evidence on record against the petitioner. PW1 complainant in examination-in-chief has stated that he did not remember the registration number of the Truck and during cross-examination had stated that the driver escaped from the scene and the name of the petitioner was written in FIR Ex.PD by Thanedar and he did not know the name of the petitioner and also did not identify him. PW2 Alam Khan had stated that the Truck reached there from the side of Mandi Bahauddin on high speed but no where he stated that the petitioner was driving the Truck. PW3 Adam Khan stated that the Truck on high speed came from the side of Mandi Bahauddin which was driven rashly and negligently and had run over 13 sheep of PW1 and also stated during cross- examination that Thanedar had written the name of the petitioner, as well as registration number of the truck. PW4 has stated that he had not signed the recovery memo. Ex.PB, and Police obtained his thumb mark on recovery memo. Ex.PB.
Neither the petitioner was stated by P.Ws. 1 to 4 to be driving the Truck nor he was apprehended at the spot. Thanedar hud himself mentioned the name of the petitioner in the HR Ex.PD. P.Ws neither identified the petitioner in the Police Station nor in the Court and had not specifically stated that the petitioner was driving the Truck rashly and negligently at the relevant time.
7. Pursuant to the above discussion I am of the view that the prosecution has not been able to establish its case beyond doubt against the petitioner and giving him the benefit of doubt I acquit the petitioner of the charge. The petitioner is on bail, his bail bond is discharged.