Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 387 (HP)

YASH PAL SINGH v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2013-05-06

SANJAY KAROL

body2013
JUDGMENT SANJAY KAROL, J. - 1. ASSAILING the judgment dated 26.3.2004, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (1), Dehra, District Kangra (HP), in Criminal Case No.37-I/2000-/144-II/2000, titled as State versus Yashpal Singh, as affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, vide judgment dated 1.1.2007, passed in Criminal Appeal No.7-G/XI-2004, tilted as Yashpal Singh versus The State of Himachal Pradesh, petitioner has filed the present Revision Petition under the provisions of Sections 397 & 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. AS per the case of the prosecution, on 24.4.2000, accused Yashpal Singh was driving Truck bearing No.HPK-8992. The vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. When the vehicle reached in front of the gate of Government Senior Secondary School, Bankhandi, the accused hit a child namely Jasbir Singh, a student of 2nd Class of the same school. The child was standing on the side of the road. As a result of the accident, which occurred due to negligence of the accused, the child died on the spot. Hearing cries, Shri Sansar Chand (PW-4), father of the deceased, Shri Vikram (PW-3) and Shri Ram Lal (PW-2), all who have their shops closeby immediately came on the spot. The incident was witnessed both by PW-3 and PW-4. Also, Ram Kumar (PW-1), who was travelling on his scooter witnessed the occurrence of the incident. He stopped and informed the police. Without stopping the vehicle on the spot, accused fled away and only after covering a distance of 500 meters stopped the same. Thereafter, he abandoned the truck. Police reached the spot and on the basis of statement (Ex.P-1) of Shri Ram Kumar (PW-1) registered F.I.R. No.43/2000 dated 24.4.2000 (Ex.PB), under the provisions of Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 184 and 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, at Police station, Palampur, District Kangra. Investigation was conducted by H.C. Shanti Swaroop (PW-6) who inspected the spot; prepared the spot map; got the spot photographed from Shri Desh Raj (PW-5); took mechanical report (Ex.PD) on record and postmortem was also got conducted and report (Ex.PA) taken on record. With the completion of investigation, Challan was presented in the Court for trial. Investigation was conducted by H.C. Shanti Swaroop (PW-6) who inspected the spot; prepared the spot map; got the spot photographed from Shri Desh Raj (PW-5); took mechanical report (Ex.PD) on record and postmortem was also got conducted and report (Ex.PA) taken on record. With the completion of investigation, Challan was presented in the Court for trial. Notice of accusation was put to the accused for having committed offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 184 and 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. IN order to establish its case, beyond reasonable doubt, in all prosecution examined as many as six witnesses. Statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also recorded, in which he took up the defence of false implication. He denied the occurrence of the incident. 4. THE Courts below, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties have convicted the accused under the provisions of Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 184 and 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months in relation to offence punishable under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and fine of Rs.500/-; undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year in relation to offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and fine of Rs.3,000/-, and undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months in relation to offence punishable under Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In default of payment of fine, the accused was to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. No sentence has been imposed in relation to offence punishable under Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the considered view that in the present case, no interference is warranted. The Courts below have correctly and completely appreciated the testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses and it cannot be said that there is any illegality/perversity in the findings so recorded by them. 5. MR. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the considered view that in the present case, no interference is warranted. The Courts below have correctly and completely appreciated the testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses and it cannot be said that there is any illegality/perversity in the findings so recorded by them. 5. MR. Rajesh Mandhotra, learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the judgment on the ground that there are major contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, rendering the witnesses to be unreliable. The owner of the vehicle was not examined to show that at the time of occurrence of the accident, in fact, it was the accused who was driving the vehicle. There is only one F.I.R. on record whereas witness has deposed about two F.I.Rs. Also, the time, the place and by whom the vehicle was seized has not come on record. 6. THE fact that Jasbir Singh died is not in dispute. Postmortem report (Ex.PA) is on record to this effect. Conjoint reading of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, i.e. Shri Ram Kumar (PW-1), Shri Ram Lal (PW-2), Shri Vikram (PW-3) and Shri Sansar Chand (PW-4) would conclusively establish the fact that it was the accused who was actually driving the vehicle at the time of occurrence of the accident. Even his line of cross- examination suggests his admission about his presence on the spot. The witnesses who have not fully supported the prosecution with regard to the negligence of the accused, have also deposed that it was the accused who was driving the vehicle at the time of occurrence of the accident. These witnesses are PW-1 and PW-2 and their deposition to this effect has not been controverted by the accused. It also stands proved that the child died as a result of the accident. Out of six prosecution witnesses, the testimonies of Shri Ram Kumar (PW-1), Shri Ram Lal (PW-2), Shri Vikram (PW- 3) and Shri Sansar Chand (PW-4), are relevant. According to the prosecution, they are the spot witnesses. Shri Ram Kumar (PW-1) and Shri Ram Lal (PW-2), as observed, were declared hostile and cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. Significantly, both these witnesses have deposed that the truck was being driven by the accused at a high speed. According to the prosecution, they are the spot witnesses. Shri Ram Kumar (PW-1) and Shri Ram Lal (PW-2), as observed, were declared hostile and cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. Significantly, both these witnesses have deposed that the truck was being driven by the accused at a high speed. They have also deposed that the boy was hit with the vehicle and as such died on the spot. These witnesses have denied having actually seen the occurrence of the accident but nonetheless have deposed that the vehicle was not stopped by the accused on the spot. After the boy was hit, the vehicle was taken away and stopped only after covering certain distance. His conduct after the accident stands proved. 7. SHRI Ram Kumar (PW-1) is working in the police department. He has deposed that he got the F.I.R. registered. His version also stands corroborated by H.C. Shanti Swaroop (PW-6). No doubt, Shri Sansar Chand (PW-4), father of the deceased has also deposed that he got the F.I.R. registered and it is also true that there is only one F.I.R. on record, but then statement of this witness has to be read in the context that he is a layman. He may have gone to the Police Station to register an F.I.R., however since an F.I.R. already stood registered, there was no need for the police to register another F.I.R. Significantly, on this issue accused has not cross-examined H.C. Shanti Swaroop (PW-6) as he has uncontrovertedly and unambiguously deposed about the registration of the F.I.R. In fact, it is not the case of the prosecution that two separate F.I.Rs were registered. Hence, the contention that the second F.I.R. is not on record, which in the given facts would have no bearing on the merits of the case, needs to be rejected. 8. THE seizure, the place and the time of the vehicle was never disputed by the accused during trial and this contention, which in any event, is not significantly relevant, cannot be allowed to be taken at this stage. The testimony of the owner of the vehicle was not required in view of the proven fact that the accused was driving the vehicle at the relevant time. The testimony of the owner of the vehicle was not required in view of the proven fact that the accused was driving the vehicle at the relevant time. Conjoint reading of the testimonies of PW-1 to PW-4 would also reveal that Shri Ram Lal (PW-2), Shri Vikram (PW-3) and Shri Sansar Chand (PW-4) are having their shops at the place of the accident. PW-2 was declared hostile when he deposed that he had not seen the accident. But even then PW4, who is the father of the deceased in no uncertain terms has deposed that he not only witnessed the occurrence of the incident but had also seen the accused drive the truck away from the spot. He testifies presence of PW-3 on the spot which version stands corroborated by PW-3 who further deposed that he had signaled the driver to stop the vehicle but the accused take it away from the spot. Significantly, Shri Ram Lal (PW-2) in his cross-examination has also deposed that he had seen a boy being hit with the vehicle. The boy had come under the tyre of the truck. PW-3 and PW-4 have deposed about the negligence of the accused. 9. THE accident occurred at a place where there was a school and shops nearby. It is also on record that boys were coming out of the school since it was recess time. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the vehicle was being driven on the National Highway. As such, accused ought to have been more careful. Further unrebutted testimony of Shri Ram Kumar (PW-1) is there to establish that the vehicle was being driven at a high speed which version stands corroborated by PW-3. The driver ought to have exercised more caution while passing through the area in question. Prosecution has proven the negligence of the accused which resulted into the deceased being hit by the truck resulting into his death. Hence, it cannot be said that the Courts below erred in correctly appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution. 10. THERE are minor contradictions in the statements of Shri Vikram (PW-3) and Shri Sansar Chand (PW-4) with regard to the persons who reached the place where the body of the boy was lying, but then these contradictions are not material rendering the witnesses to be unreliable and/or their testimonies to be shaky and unworthy of credence. 10. THERE are minor contradictions in the statements of Shri Vikram (PW-3) and Shri Sansar Chand (PW-4) with regard to the persons who reached the place where the body of the boy was lying, but then these contradictions are not material rendering the witnesses to be unreliable and/or their testimonies to be shaky and unworthy of credence. It is also urged that the site map shows that Shri Vikram (PW-3) could not have witnessed the incident as his shop is at least ten meters before the school gate where the incident occurred. It be only observed that the incident occurred at a place where there is neither any curve nor is the view obstructed from the shop of Shri Vikram (PW-3). 11. I do not find any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the judgments passed by the Courts below. Consequently, the present petition, without any merit is dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are cancelled. He shall surrender before the trial Court to serve out the sentence. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.