Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 251 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sant Ram

2014-03-24

RAJIV SHARMA

body2014
JUDGMENT Per Rajiv Sharma, Judge. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.6.2005 rendered by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No.III, Hamirpur, H.P., in Criminal Case No.45-I-99, RBT No.385-II-04, whereby accused, Sant Ram, who was charged with and tried for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 185-3 and 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, was acquitted. 2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 30.6.1999 at about 5.30 P.M., accused was driving Truck No. HP-21-0764 on the public highway at Jangal Beri. Due to his rash and negligent driving, he struck the Truck against Tempo No. HP-37-4430 causing injuries to PW2 complainant Rikhi Ram. He was taken to Hospital. The police recorded statement of PW2 Rikhi Ram under Section 154 Cr.P.C., on the basis of which FIR was registered. According to the prosecution, the accused was driving the Truck without driving licence and he had consumed liquor while driving. The truck and tempo were taken into possession by the police and got mechanically examined. The police visited the spot and prepared the spot map. The investigation was completed. The challan was put up in the learned trial court after completing all codal formalities. 3. The prosecution examined as many as eleven witnesses in support of its case. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. He denied the case of the prosecution and claimed innocence. Learned trial court acquitted the accused vide judgment dated 30.6.2005, as stated hereinabove. Hence, the appeal. 4. Mr. M.A.Khan, learned Addl. Advocate General has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused. 5. Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned Advocate, has supported the impugned judgment dated 30.6.2005. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings and record carefully. 7. PW1 Nitin Sood, deposed that he was an agent of 10 Number Bidi. On 30.6.1999 they had gone to Sandhol in their Tempo No.HP-37-4430. He was accompanied by his salesman, Santosh Kumar. When they were coming back from Sandhol and reached near Village Beri, a truck No. HP-21-0664 was going ahead. The accused took the truck on the kacha side of the road. 2-3 labourers were travelling in the truck. They started getting down from the truck. All of a sudden, the accused reversed the truck and his truck struck against their tempo. The accused took the truck on the kacha side of the road. 2-3 labourers were travelling in the truck. They started getting down from the truck. All of a sudden, the accused reversed the truck and his truck struck against their tempo. One of the labourers received injuries. Front portion of their tempo was also damaged. 8. PW2, Rikhi Ram, deposed that three years back, he boarded the truck driven by the accused. When they reached near Village Beri, few persons got down from the truck. When he tried to get down, the accused reversed the truck and his truck struck against a stationed Tempo. He received injuries on his leg. He was taken to Hospital. His statement Ext.PW2/A was recorded. In cross-examination, he deposed that one tyre of the truck skidded into drain. 9. PW3, Kishori Lal, deposed that he signed memo Ext.PW3/A whereby truck and tempo were taken into possession. 10. PW4, Purshotam Lal, deposed that he mechanically examined Truck No. HP-21-0764 and Tempo No. HP-37-4430 vide reports Ext.PW4/A and Ext.PW4/B respectively. 11. PW5, Dr. J.P. Narain, deposed that he medically examined the complainant and issued MLC Ext. PW5/A. He noticed certain injuries on the body of the complainant. These injuries were possible in a vehicular accident. He also examined the accused and issued MLC Ext. PW5/D. According to him, the accused had consumed liquor, however, he was not intoxicated. 12. PW6 Yash Pal Singh, Radiologist, proved on record X-ray films vide Ext. PW5/B and Ext.PW5/C. 13. PW7, Sher Singh, deposed that he was owner of the truck in question. He produced R.C., road permit and log book of the truck before the police vide Ext. PW7/A. 14. PW8, Inspector Mehar Chand, deposed that on 30.6.1999, the Medical Officer, CHC Sujanpur, telephonically informed about the accident. He reached the hospital and recorded statement of the injured, Rikhi Ram vide Ext.PW2/A, on the basis of which FIR Ext.PW8/A was registered. 15. PW9, Santosh Kumar, deposed that he was working with Nitin Traders. On 30.6.1999, they had gone to Sandhol to supply Bidis. When they were coming back, near village Beri, a truck was going ahead. 4-5 labourers were sitting in the truck. The accused took the truck towards kacha side of the road. They stopped their vehicle behind the truck. The persons sitting in the truck started getting down. On 30.6.1999, they had gone to Sandhol to supply Bidis. When they were coming back, near village Beri, a truck was going ahead. 4-5 labourers were sitting in the truck. The accused took the truck towards kacha side of the road. They stopped their vehicle behind the truck. The persons sitting in the truck started getting down. The accused reversed the truck and struck against front portion of their vehicle. One of the persons was sandwiched. 16. PW10, HC Prem Chand, deposed that he visited the spot and prepared the spot map Ext.PW10/A. He took into possession documents of both the trucks. He also obtained MLCs of the injured as well as accused. 17. PW11 Chiranji Lal, proved on record Rapats No. 18 and 23 vide Ext.PW11/A and Ext.PW11/B respectively. 18. PW1, Nitin Sood, has not testified that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent act of the accused. According to him, the accused reversed the vehicle and the persons, who were getting down, were injured. PW2, Rikhi Ram has not stated that the accused was driving the vehicle in a negligent manner. According to him, the accused reversed the truck and since he was getting down from the truck, he received injuries. It is true that PW2 Rikhi Ram has received injuries as per MLC Ext.PW5/A, however, the prosecution has not proved that the injuries were received by PW2 Rikhi Ram due to rash and negligent driving of the accused. It has come in the statement of PW5 Dr. J.P. Narain that the accused had consumed alcohol, however, he was not intoxicated. PW9 Santosh Kumar also deposed that a truck was going ahead of their truck. One person was sandwiched between the trucks when the accused reversed his truck. He has also not stated that the accused was negligent. In the instant case, the accused was taking out the truck from the drain. The persons who were sitting in the truck themselves were negligent since they were not supposed to get down when the truck was being reversed. The accused could not imagine that the persons sitting in his truck would all of a sudden start getting down from the truck. The driver of tempo No. HP-37-4430 should have maintained reasonable distance between two trucks. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the accused. 19. The accused could not imagine that the persons sitting in his truck would all of a sudden start getting down from the truck. The driver of tempo No. HP-37-4430 should have maintained reasonable distance between two trucks. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the accused. 19. Accordingly, in view of the observations and analysis, made hereinabove, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Bail bonds are ordered to be discharged. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.