witness and in his evidence, he has not stated any where as to why he did not give the information in the FIR about the alleged particulars collected from Tarsem and Sushil. PW2 was the wife of the deceased pillion rider and she was not an eye witness. PW3 was Tarsem, who was said to be an eye witness stated that he along with Sushil was coming from Delhi to Ratia hiring a private car. When they reached the area of village Madina near Mokhra turn about, they saw a Tata vehicle driven by Rajinder going in rash and negligent manner and hit a motor cycle due to which impact the motor cyclist and pillion rider fell down and sustained serious injuries. The driver of the vehicle who was supposed to have stopped the vehicle for a while when Tarsem had tried to note down the registration number of the vehicle and when he asked the name and particulars of the driver, he gave the name but however, ran away from the spot. Thereafter, he was supposed to have come near the injured persons and asked their names. He would also state that he informed PW1 about the accident and the name of the driver and the particulars of the vehicle. In the cross-examination it was elicited that motor cycle was coming from the opposite direction and they witnessed a head on collision. It was also stated that they noticed the tata vehicle from about 150 to 200 feet. He would state that he was examined for the fist time two months after the accident by the police. In this case, the driver who had filed the written statement denying the accident died during the pendency of proceedings and therefore, his evidence also could not be placed. If the police had materials on the basis of which a challan had been laid, it would have been only appropriate that
