Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1306 (HP)

State of H. P. v. Hukam Chand

2011-03-15

SURINDER SINGH

body2011
JUDGMENT Surinder Singh, J. In police challan No. 68-1 of 2006 decided on 31.7.2010, the respondent driver of Jeep bearing registration No. HP-65-0591, was acquitted by the learned trial Court. The State has sought leave to appeal. 2. Heard and gone through the record. 3. It is alleged that on 12.11.2009, at about 6.30 p.m. respondent was driving the jeep aforesaid in a rash or negligent manner. It stopped near a curve to alight the passengers. When the respondent again took it off, it hit the complainant PW1 Dama Devi standing on the side of the road with the result; she sustained injuries on the head and various parts of her body. Thereafter she was hospitalized, next day the matter was reported to the police. 4. Police registered a case under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act in terms of FIR No. 411/2005. On the next day, i.e. on 12.12.2005, police visited the spot and prepared the site plan, and after recording statements of the witnesses, presented the challan against the respondent in the Court. 5. Respondent faced trial and at the end of the trial, he was acquitted on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove rash or negligent act of driving by the respondent and also that there has been material contradictions appearing in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. 6. The perusal of statement of the complainant PW1 Dama Devi shows that she was standing on the side of the road along with PW3 Om parkash and one Dhan Devi. She stated that Jeep was in a high speed when it struck against her. In cross-examination, she stated that the jeep was being driven on its own side of the road and it was at a slow speed. 7. Whereas PW3 Om Prakash stated that Dama Devi was standing in the verandah of her house, besides the road, the passengers were being alighted at a distance of about 50 meters. The defence raised is that Smt. Dama Devi sustained injuries from an iron road which was being hit by her nephew on the head of respondent but he escaped with the result it hit Dama Devi and she sustained injuries. This fact has also been explained by the respondent in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This fact has also been explained by the respondent in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The another witness Shri Dhan Dev has not been examined. 8. PW2 Churamani is the relative of the injured who was running a kariyana shop nearby. He gave altogether a different version. According to him the vehicle in question was on the wrong side of the road which was very wide and Dama Devi was standing on the left side of the road. The other alleged eye witnesses, namely PW4, Kesar Singh, PW5 Hoshiar Singh and PW6 Dalip Singh did not support the case of the prosecution. As such they were declared hostile. Thus, there are material contradictions with regard to the place of incident and the manner in which the alleged accident has taken place. 9. Against the aforesaid background which emerges from the statements of the witnesses, the main ingredients of the offence, i.e., rash or negligent driving by the respondent stands not proved. Therefore, in these circumstances, leave to appeal cannot be granted to the State. As such it is rejected. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.