Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 315 (HP)

SANJEEV KUMAR v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2013-04-16

SANJAY KAROL

body2013
JUDGEMENT SANJAY KAROL, J. 1. ASSAILING the judgment dated 2.8.2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No. II, Hamirpur, H.P. in Cri. Case No. 160-II-2000, as affirmed by the Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, H.P., vide judgment dated 6.1.2007, passed in Cri. Appeal No. 21 of 2006, titled as Sanjeev Kumar vs. State of H.P., the accused-petitioner has filed the present Revision under Section 397 read with Section 401, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. ACCUSED stands convicted for having committed an offence punishable under Section 279 and 304-A, IPC and sentenced to go simple imprisonment for a period of one month and pay a fine of Rs.2000/- for an offence under Section 279, IPC and to undergo and serve simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine, accused has to further serve additional sentence. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that petitioner has made out a case for interference as the Courts below have not correctly and completely appreciated the evidence led by the parties, which has resulted into rendering of incorrect and perverse findings. The same has resulted into travesty of justice. 3. IT is the case of the prosecution that on 26.3.2000 Smt. Vidya Devi was beaten up at her house. On 27.3.2000 she and her husband, who is deaf and dumb (not examined in the Court) were going to the Police Station to report the matter. Some where near a place known as Tayala, when both of them were crossing the road, which is a National Highway, accused Sanjeev Kumar, who was driving Jeep bearing No. HP-22-7020 hit Smt. Vidya Devi, as a result of which she fell down and sustained injuries on her head. During the course of investigation of FIR No.50 of 2000 (Ext.PW-10/A), in relation to incident which had taken place in the house of Smt. Vidya Devi on 26.3.2000, police disclosed the factum of the accident and have registered FIR No.55 of 2000 dated 31.3.2000 (Ext.PW-6/A), against the present accused in relation to the accident in question. 4. INVESTIGATION revealed that immediately after the accident Smt. Vidya Devi was taken to the private Nursing Home at Hamirpur by the accused, where she was examined by Ayurvedic Doctor Shri Suresh Kumar (PW-5). However, accused left the injured at the Clinic. 4. INVESTIGATION revealed that immediately after the accident Smt. Vidya Devi was taken to the private Nursing Home at Hamirpur by the accused, where she was examined by Ayurvedic Doctor Shri Suresh Kumar (PW-5). However, accused left the injured at the Clinic. Eventually Smt. Vidya Devi expired. After completion of investigation, police presented the challan for trial. Notice of accusation was put to the accused for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Sections 279, 304-A, IPC to which he did not plead guilty. 5. IN order to establish its case, prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses and the statement of accused under Section 313, Cr. P.C. was also recorded. 6. AS noticed herein earlier, based on the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, the Courts below having held the accused guilty in relation to the charged offence and sentenced him to serve imprisonment. The fact that accused Sanjeev Kumar was engaged to ply the vehicle in question cannot be disputed. In any event, this stands proved through the unrebutted testimony of the owner of the vehicle Shri Rattan Lal (PW-3). 7. DR .Suresh Kumar (PW-1) has deposed that it was the driver of the vehicle, who had brought the complainant to his Clinic and at that time another man, who was deaf and dumb, had also accompanied him. The lady was having injury and he stitched her wound. Though in his examination-in- chief this Doctor has deposed that thereafter accused ran away, but, however, this version stands contradicted by him in his cross-examination. Significantly, Doctor does not state that the condition of the deceased was critical at that point in time. The deceased has only sustained certain injuries. 8. ACCORDING to the prosecution, the incident was witnessed by Shri Rajiv Chand (PW-2) and Ramveer (PW-4). Shri Rajiv Chand has not supported the case of the prosecution. He denies the occurrence of the incident in his presence. He was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor, but in my considered view, nothing fruitful could be elicited from his testimony. In no uncertain terms, he has deposed that he did not recognize the driver at the time of occurrence of the incident. He admits that in relation to the incident which had taken place prior to the occurrence of the accident, police registered a case under the provisions of Section 302, IPC. In no uncertain terms, he has deposed that he did not recognize the driver at the time of occurrence of the incident. He admits that in relation to the incident which had taken place prior to the occurrence of the accident, police registered a case under the provisions of Section 302, IPC. Now significantly, the Investigating Officer has placed on record FIR No.50 of 2000 (Ext.PW-10/A) dated 27.3.2000, registered under Sections 302, 342, IPC at Police Station, Hamirpur. The factum of registration of said FIR was also admitted by ASI Shri Rajinder Pal (PW-9). Now if Smt. Vidya Devi had died on account of the beatings given by Smt. Pritto Devi accused in the aforesaid crime, then obviously the charge against the present petitioner for having caused death of Smt. Vidya Devi by an act of rash and negligent driving, not amounting to culpable homicide is unsustainable in law. The investigation is absolutely flawed and not fair. 9. THAT apart, other spot witness Shri Ramveer (PW-4), whose testimony remained unrebutted, has deposed that the Jeep was being driven at a normal speed of 40-50 km. per hour. He states that the old lady suddenly tried to cross the road. The driver used the brakes but despite the same, the Jeep hit the old lady, as a result of which she fell down. The old lady sustained injuries on her head. She was taken in the Jeep to the Hospital by the accused. In no uncertain terms, he has deposed that the driver tried to save the old lady, who was trying to cross the road in haste. The road is wide where the normal speed of vehicles is 50-60 km. per hour. The other prosecution witnesses are of formal nature. 10. HENCE, from the testimony of material prosecution witnesses, it cannot be said that prosecution has been able to prove its case, much less beyond reasonable doubt, with regard to the factum that at the time of occurrence of the incident, the accused was driving the vehicle on a public highway, in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life, or that the there was likelihood to cause bodily injury to the deceased or that by virtue of such act of rash and negligence the deceased sustained injuries and eventually died. Hence for all the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed and the judgments of the Courts below are set aside. Accused is acquitted from the charged offences. Bail bonds are discharged. Appeal is allowed.