Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1836 (HP)

State of H. P. v. Kulbir Singh

2015-12-10

RAJIV SHARMA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 5.3.2015 rendered by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class (II), Kangra, District Kangra in Criminal Case No. 1-II/2007, whereby the respondent-accused (hereinafter referred to as the “accused” for convenience sake), who was charged with and tried for offences punishable under sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, has been acquitted. 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 16.12.2005 at about 10.30 A.M. complainant’s wife Smt. Roshani Devi alongwith two other women and a young girl was walking on the road at Daulatpur. A truck bearing No. HR-37-B-9827 came from Kangra side. A plank fell from the truck. Smt. Roshani Devi was hit on her stomach by the plank. She fell on the road. She was taken to the hospital. The tempo driver also came to the hospital. She was medically examined. She was discharged in the evening. She was again taken to hospital, Kangra at about 7.30 P.M. She was operated at Zonal Hospital, Dharamshala on 17.12.2005. On 31.12.2005, her condition worsened. She was taken to CMC Hospital, Ludhiana. The complainant informed the police that Smt. Roshani Devi died on 16.1.2006 at CMC Hospital, Ludhiana. Accordingly, on the basis of the complaint, case under sections 279, 337 and 304-A was registered. The police investigated the case and the challan was put up in the Court after completing all the codal formalities. 3. Prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses to prove its case against the accused. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. He denied the incriminating circumstances put to him. The trial court acquitted the accused. 4. Mr. Parmod Thakur, learned Addl. A.G. has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the State and have gone through the judgment meticulously. 6. Complainant Chuni Lal has appeared as PW-1. He has reiterated the facts narrated by him in his written complaint filed before S.D.P.O. Kangra. He has given the details the manner in which accident has taken place at about 10.30 A.M. The plank fell from the truck and hit on the belly of his wife. The persons present on the spot shouted and the truck driver was caught. She was taken to Hospital at Kangra in a van. She was operated upon. He has given the details the manner in which accident has taken place at about 10.30 A.M. The plank fell from the truck and hit on the belly of his wife. The persons present on the spot shouted and the truck driver was caught. She was taken to Hospital at Kangra in a van. She was operated upon. Thereafter, she was referred to CMC, Ludhiana. She died on 16.1.2006. He has admitted that the accident has not taken place in his presence. 7. PW-2 Kanta Devi has deposed that on 16.12.2005, she alongwith Asha Devi and Meenakshi was going towards forest. A tempo came from Kangra side in a high speed and plank fell down and hit Smt. Roshani Devi. She identified the accused. However, in her crossexamination, she has admitted that tempo was moving on the left side of the road. She has admitted that piece of plank fell from the tempo on its own. The driver had stopped the tempo on the spot. 10-12 persons gathered on the spot. The accused paid Rs. 650/-, which were incurred on treatment at Kangra Hospital. She has also admitted that when the tempo driver did not pay the expenses then the present case was registered. 8. The plank had fallen accidently. It cannot be said that the accused in any manner was responsible for felling of plank accidently which hit Smt. Roshani Devi. The case has been registered when the accused has not paid the expenses for treatment of Smt. Roshani Devi. 9. Similarly, PW-3 Asha Devi has deposed that on 16.12.2005, she alongwith Roshani Devi and Kanta Devi was going towards forest to collect fire wood. A plank fell from the tempo and hit Roshani Devi. Roshani Devi fell down. She was taken to hospital. She had also gone to the hospital. The accused had also gone to the hospital. She has admitted that the tempo was moving on the left side of the road and the plank fell on its own. The accused had stopped the vehicle. She has also admitted that the driver paid the medical expenses. 10. PW-4 Kewal Krishan has deposed that the accident has not taken place in his presence on 16.12.2005. Roshan Devi was taken to hospital in his van. PW-5 Dr. Kush Dev Singh has examined Roshani Devi on 16.12.2005. PW-8 Dr. Sanjeev Kumar has proved the discharge card Ex.PW-8/A. 11. She has also admitted that the driver paid the medical expenses. 10. PW-4 Kewal Krishan has deposed that the accident has not taken place in his presence on 16.12.2005. Roshan Devi was taken to hospital in his van. PW-5 Dr. Kush Dev Singh has examined Roshani Devi on 16.12.2005. PW-8 Dr. Sanjeev Kumar has proved the discharge card Ex.PW-8/A. 11. Thus, it is evident from the statements of PW-2 Kanta Devi and PW-3 Asha Devi that the plank had fallen from the truck accidently. The FIR was registered very belatedly. The accident has taken place on 16.12.2005. The complaint was filed on 14.1.2006 before S.D.P.O. Kangra. The S.D.P.O. Kangra had sent the file to S.H.O. Kangra on 24.1.2006. PW-7 Som Raj has admitted that the plank had fallen accidently. Thus, the accused cannot be held guilty of rash and negligent driving. 12. Consequently, in view of analysis and discussion made hereinabove, the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused for offences punishable under sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and there is no need to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the trial court. 13. Accordingly, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.