Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 985 (HP)

Ramesh Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2014-07-25

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2014
Judgment : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice. A successful prosecution for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, before the learned Magistrate below, ended in conviction of the revision petitioner herein, convicting him for six months simple imprisonment under Section 279 and two years under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, followed by a fine of Rs.2000/-, in Criminal Case No. 513-I/05, with the default clause, having been affirmed in appeal by the Court of Sessions in Criminal Appeal No.2 of 2007. 2. By the medium of this revision petition, the convict/petitioner has questioned the judgments passed by both the Courts below. 3. Bereft of all unnecessary details, concisely the prosecution story, which is borne out from the record, is that on 25.8.2005 at about 8.15 p.m. complainant Vijender Singh and his friends, namely, S.R. Gupta SDO, Susheel Sharma, J.E. and Manoj Thapar started their journey from Kurukshetra to Mani Mahesh in a quails vehicle bearing registration No. DL4-CP-3559, being driven by Ramesh Kumar, petitioner herein, followed by another vehicle No.HR-63-8191, for taking holy dip at Mani Mahesh. When the vehicle driven by the present petitioner is stated to have reached at Bragnala, he stopped the vehicle. Complainant Vijender Singh also alighted from the vehicle while Susheel Kumar remained seated in the vehicle. The vehicle, though was stationary, but suddenly started moving backward on which S.R. Gupta, who was near the front door of the vehicle tried to tighten hand-brake but in vain and vehicle fell into river Ravi dragging S.R. Gupta and Manoj Thapar with it, while Susheel Kumar was also sitting inside the vehicle as such all three persons fell into river along with the vehicle. 4. The said unfortunate incident was reported by Vijender Singh to the police and FIR came to be registered under the aforesaid Sections, which set the police in motion. 5. The Investigating Officer conducted the investigation. During the investigation, among other things, mechanical report was obtained, photographs were taken and postmortem of all the deceased persons was also conducted. 6. After completing the investigation, challan against the convict-petitioner under Section 173 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was presented in the Court of competent jurisdiction for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, for his trial. He was accordingly chargesheeted for the offences aforementioned. 6. After completing the investigation, challan against the convict-petitioner under Section 173 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was presented in the Court of competent jurisdiction for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, for his trial. He was accordingly chargesheeted for the offences aforementioned. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. Prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses, namely, PW1 Vijender Singh, PW2 Satish Kumar, PW3 Vineet Kumar, PW4 M.R. Gupta, PW5 Darshan Kumar, PW6 Dr. K.L. Sharma, PW7 C. Tarsem Singh, PW8 Moti Ram, PW9 Anil Mehra, PW10 ASI Kripal Singh, PW11, SHO Partap Singh, PW12 Sanjay Kumar and PW13 investigating Officer Desh Raj. 8. The statement of the convict-petitioner was also recorded in terms of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. All the incriminating circumstances were put to him. He pleaded his false implication in the case. However, no evidence in defence was led by the convict-petitioner. 9. At the end of the Trial, the convict- petitioner stood convicted by the Trial Court. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed appeal before the Court of Sessions, that too, was dismissed and conviction has been affirmed, as aforesaid. 10. I do wish to observe here that all the thirteen witnesses examined by the prosecution, referred to above are relevant but, the statements of only two PWs, namely, PW7 Constable Tarsem Singh and PW13 Investigating Officer Desh Raj are very very vital. 11. PW7 Constable Tarsem Singh mechanic of the department categorically stated that he has not found any mechanical defect in the offending vehicle and the accident was outcome of the rash and negligent act of the driver. 12. The investigating Officer PW13 Desh Raj has conducted the detailed investigation and recorded the statement of eye witnesses of the occurrence and has categorically supported and proved the prosecution case. 13. Both the Courts below have scanned the evidence and came to the conclusion that the driver of the offending vehicle, i.e., the petitioner herein has driven the vehicle rashly and negligently and has not taken due care and caution while stopping the vehicle, which resulted into the death of three persons mentioned above. 13. Both the Courts below have scanned the evidence and came to the conclusion that the driver of the offending vehicle, i.e., the petitioner herein has driven the vehicle rashly and negligently and has not taken due care and caution while stopping the vehicle, which resulted into the death of three persons mentioned above. The prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that there was no mechanical defect in the vehicle and has proved that driver has committed grave negligence while stopping the vehicle and without knowing what were the consequences of stopping the vehicle in such a hilly place, that too, without applying hand brakes and putting the vehicle in gear. 14. Having said so both the Courts below have passed the well and reasoned judgments and prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt of the convict-petitioner by leading cogent and reliable evidence, in clear and unambiguous terms, beyond all reasonable doubts. In revision, this Court has to exercise limited jurisdiction to see only the legality, correctness, and propriety of the judgment. The concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below in the judgments are legally sound needs no interference. 15. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. The convict-petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned trial Court on 25th August, 2014, to undergo the sentence. In case, the convict-petitioner fails to surrender before the learned trial Court, the Trial Court shall take steps to take the convict-petitioner into custody and to lodge him in Jail. 16. Send down the record forthwith to both the Courts alongwith copy of this judgment by or before 25th August, 2014.