Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 218 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Mehar Chand @ Mahesh

2014-03-19

SANJAY KAROL

body2014
JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, J. (oral) Assailing the judgment dated 19.11.2005, passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., in Criminal Case No. 59/2 of 2005/04, titled as State of H.P. vs. Mehar Chand @ Mahesh, whereby respondent-accused stands acquitted, State has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. In short, it is the case of prosecution that on 28.11.2004, accused Mehar Chand was driving vehicle bearing No. HP 18A 0741, in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which accident took place, in which occupants of the vehicle, including the accused suffered injuries. On the basis of complaint (Ext. PW-1/A) made by Sh. Darshan Lal (PW-1), F.I.R No. 234 of 2004 (Ext. PW-10/A), dated 28.11.2004 was registered at Police Station Sadar, Nahan, Distt. Sirmour, H.P., against the accused, under the provisions of Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. Police conducted investigation and with its completion, challan was presented in the Court for trial. 3. Notice of accusation was put to the accused for having committed offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, in all, prosecution examined eleven witnesses and statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. was also recorded, in which he pleaded false implication. No defence evidence was led by the accused. 5. The Court below acquitted the accused for the reason that prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence the present appeal. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the considered view that in the instant case no ground for interference is made out. 7. The fact that the accused was driving the vehicle i.e. maruti-van bearing No. HP 18A 0741, at the time of occurrence of the accident on 28.11.2004, is not in dispute. The fact that accident took place during broad day light is also not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that in the said accident passengers sustained injuries. In any case this fact stands established by the prosecution through the testimony of Dr. A. K. Gupta (PW-8). Sh. Madan Lal, one of the passengers expired. Smt. Rita Devi (PW-3), Sh. It is also not in dispute that in the said accident passengers sustained injuries. In any case this fact stands established by the prosecution through the testimony of Dr. A. K. Gupta (PW-8). Sh. Madan Lal, one of the passengers expired. Smt. Rita Devi (PW-3), Sh. Sanjay Kumar (PW-4) and Ms. Rajni another passenger and accused sustained injuries. Post Mortem Report (Ext. PW-8/G) of Sh. Madan Lal is on record which shows that the death took place as a result of injuries which were grievous in nature. 8. The question which needs to be considered is as to whether the accused, at the time of occurrence of the accident was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger human life likely to cause hurt , simple and/or grievous, as also caused death of one of the passengers or not? 9. Undisputedly accused stands charged for having committed offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. Prosecution, to establish the charge, has referred to and relied upon the testimonies of material witnesses i.e. Sh. Darshan Lal (PW-1), Smt. Rita Devi (PW-3) and Sh. Sanjay Kumar (PW-4). 10. It is a settled principle of law that in order to impose criminal liability on the accused, it must be proved and established, beyond reasonable doubt, that accident took place entirely and/or due to rash and negligent act and conduct of the accused. What is rash and negligent act and conduct now stands well settled. 11. In order to prove the same, one has to peruse the testimonies of material witnesses. Significantly witnesses have deposed that accident took place on the National Highway but at that time, speed of the vehicle was not more than 30 – 40 km/h. Though one witness has deposed that speed was 20 – 25 km/h. 12. Complainant (PW-1) states that accident occurred for the reason that while driving, accused was trying to change the cassette of the music system installed in the vehicle. But however on this issue there is no unanimity. 13. It has come on record that road where the accident took place was quite wide but there was a blind curve and though the driver applied brakes but however because of steep slope, vehicle went down hill as a result of which passengers sitting in the vehicle sustained injuries. But however on this issue there is no unanimity. 13. It has come on record that road where the accident took place was quite wide but there was a blind curve and though the driver applied brakes but however because of steep slope, vehicle went down hill as a result of which passengers sitting in the vehicle sustained injuries. It has come on record, through the statement of Sh. Sanjay Kumar (PW-4) that at the time of accident one vehicle was coming from the opposite side at a high speed. It appears that accident occurred not on account of rash and negligent act and conduct of the accused but on account of the fact that accused was trying to save the vehicle and the passengers from the vehicle coming from the opposite side. 14. Having perused the testimony of the prosecution witnesses on record, it cannot be said that prosecution has been able to prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt, to the effect that accident occurred solely on account of rash and negligent act of the accused, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable material on record. It cannot be said that the findings returned by the court below are not borne out from record, perverse, illegal, erroneous or arisen out of incomplete appreciation of the prosecution evidence. 15. The accused has had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Mohammed Ankoos and others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, (2010) 1 SCC 94 , since it cannot be said that the trial Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice, no interference is warranted in the instant case. For all the aforesaid reasons, present appeal, devoid of merit, is dismissed, so also pending applications, if any. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. Records of the Court below be immediately sent back.