Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1276 (HP)

Roshan Lal v. State of H. P.

2014-09-17

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2014
Judgment : Sureshwar Thakur, Judge. The instant revision is directed against the judgment, rendered on 10.8.2007, by the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2006, affirming the findings, recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Manali, District Kullu, in Cr.Case No.20-1/2004/42-II of 2004, whereby, the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced as follows:- Sr.No. Offence Sentence imposed. 1. 279 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days; 2. 304-A IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month; 3. 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. All the sentences imposed were to run concurrently. 2. The facts, in brief, are that on the evening of 29.11.2003, at about 7.30 p.m., near PWD Office, Manali, the accused, while driving a bus, bearing registration No.HP-34A- 2825 on a public road, knocked down a scooter, bearing registration No.HP-34-5234, which resulted in causing death of its occupant Norbu Lama. The accused instead of helping the injured fled away from the spot. A telephonic message was received in the police and after recording Rapat No.Ext.PW-5/E, the police rushed to the spot, where statement of complainant under Section 154 Cr.P.C., comprised in Ext.PW-1/A was recorded, on the basis of which F.I.R. Ext.PW-3/A has come to be registered. The matter was investigated by PW-5 (ASI Bhagat Ram) who prepared spot map, comprised in Ext.PW-5/A, taken into possession the scooter, along with its documents, vide seizure memo Ext.PW-1/B as well as the offended bus vide seizure memo Ext.PW-1/C. Other documents of the bus were also taken into possession vide seizure memos Exts.PW-5/B and PW-5/C. The investigating officer got the vehicles mechanically examined. Mechanical reports are comprised in Ext.PW-2/A and Ext.PW-2/B. He has also obtained inquest report Ext.PW-5/D, post mortem report Ext.PA and photographs Ext.P-1 to P-7, negatives thereof Ext.P-8 to P-15. Mechanical reports are comprised in Ext.PW-2/A and Ext.PW-2/B. He has also obtained inquest report Ext.PW-5/D, post mortem report Ext.PA and photographs Ext.P-1 to P-7, negatives thereof Ext.P-8 to P-15. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On completion of investigation, challan was presented against the accused to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A IPC. 3. Notice of accusation was put to the accused for his having committed offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A IPC, by the learned trial Court, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 5 witnesses. On closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he pleaded innocence. On closure of proceedings under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused was given an opportunity to adduce evidence, in, defence, and he examined one witness in defence. 5. On appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of conviction against the petitioner/revisionist. In appeal, preferred by the revisionist/petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge against the judgment of conviction rendered by the learned trial Court, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal. 6. The petitioner/revisionist is aggrieved by the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned Courts below. The learned counsel for the petitioner has concertedly and vigorously contended that the findings of conviction recorded by the learned Courts below are not based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, rather, they are sequelled by gross mis-appreciation of the material on record. Hence, he contends that the findings of conviction be reversed by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and be replaced by findings of acquittal. 7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent-State has with considerable force and vigour contended that the findings of conviction recorded by the learned Courts below are based on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record and do not necessitate interference, rather merit vindication. 8. Learned counsel on either side have been heard at length and entire record has been rummaged with proper care and caution. 9. 8. Learned counsel on either side have been heard at length and entire record has been rummaged with proper care and caution. 9. The counsel for the revisionist, before this Court, would succeed only in the event of his having persuaded this Court that appreciation of the evidence by the learned Courts below being ridden with vice of perversity as well as absurdity or also interference with the impugned judgment, rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, would be warranted by this Court in case, it is displayed that both the Courts below have omitted to appreciate the entire evidence on record or had omitted to appreciate the evidence in a wholesome manner. 10. The learned Sessions Judge, while returning findings of conviction against the accused, had relied upon the testimonies of an eye witness, who is also the complainant, as the victim was unfit at the apposite stage to record his statement. The victim of the accident succumbed to the injuries, sustained by him in the accident. Sangnu Lama, the complainant, as well as the eye witness to the occurrence, has unequivocally rendered a vivid ocular account of the fateful accident, which occurred on 29.11.2003. He has communicated in his deposition of the revisionist/accused driving at an excessive speed a bus bearing registration No.HP-34A-2825 near PWD Office, Manali, in the evening, sequelling its collision with a scooter bearing registration No.HP-34A-5234 on which the deceased was atop, resulting in his falling on the road, as also his sustaining injuries from which blood started oozing out. His deposition comprised in his examination-in-chief, has during his ordeal of his cross-examination remained unshred both qua the fact of his presence at the site of occurrence and also qua the account qua the occurrence, as rendered by him in his examination-in-chief. In the face of his deposition, in his examination-in-chief, having remained unshred and unscathed, constitutes it to be a valuable piece of evidence, as also it then enjoys probative sinew and sanctity. Reliance on it, as placed by the learned Sessions Judge, while recording findings of conviction against the accused, was not misplaced. In the face of his deposition, in his examination-in-chief, having remained unshred and unscathed, constitutes it to be a valuable piece of evidence, as also it then enjoys probative sinew and sanctity. Reliance on it, as placed by the learned Sessions Judge, while recording findings of conviction against the accused, was not misplaced. Moreso, when the site plan, comprised in Ext.PW-5/A, marks the fact of the road at the site of accident being 28 feet wide and after application of brakes skid marks of the tyres have been depicted in it to have traveled up to a distance of 29 feet, too, corroborates the ocular account qua the negligence of the revisionist in sequelling the accident as deposed by complainant Sangnu Lama. Besides when it portrays the factum of the accused-revisionist driving the vehicle at an excessive speed, hence, being negligent, as also his having in wanton disregard of the cannon of his being enjoined to obey the rules of due care and caution, driving it on the inappropriate side of the road, negates the effect, if any, as tenably concluded by the learned Sessions Judge of the deceased, while not possessing a driving licence, hence, his being negligent and the accident being in sequel to his negligence. 11. The learned counsel for the revisionist has emphasized upon the factum of the learned Sessions Judge having dispelled the gravity of or the probative worth of the deposition of DW-1 portraying the factum of deceased being negligent in driving his scooter. However, in the learned Sessions Judge having pronounced upon the inefficacy of the deposition of DW-1, inasmuch, as, his having deposed qua the accident which occurred on 29.11.2002, whereas, the accident occurred, as a matter of fact, on 29.11.2003, is, a weighty and grave reason for dispelling the testimony of DW-1. Consequently, the contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist that the testimony of DW-1 has been untenably discarded, carries no weight or force. Moreso, it appears that he has rendered a concocted and a sham account of the occurrence, inasmuch, as, in case he was an eye-witness to the occurrence as also in case he intended to project the innocence of the accused, he, at the initial stage, rather, ought to have endeavoured to concert to record his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. before the Investigating Officer. His having omitted to do so, constrains this Court to conclude that, hence, he was a sham witness, who rendered a prevaricated account of the occurrence, which as tenably done by both the Courts below, was discardable. Hence, there is no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed. The judgments, rendered by the Courts below, are maintained and affirmed. No costs.