Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1101 (HP)

Hans Raj v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2016-06-20

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The instant revision petition stands preferred hereat by the accused while he stands aggrieved by the concurrently recorded renditions of both the Courts below whereby he stands convicted and consequently sentenced in the manner as encapsulated therein for his committing offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 279, 337 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 26.8.1999 at around 6.15 p.m. near Sadwan accused Hans Raj was driving the scooter bearing No.PCW-2970. Due to his rash, negligent and dangerous driving as to endanger human life and personal safety of others, he struck the vehicle with the complainant Smt. Morni Devi and her husband Rojgari Ram. Due to rash and negligent act of the accused Rojgari Ram succumbed to the injuries, whereas complainant Smt. Morni Devi sustained injuries. Injured was moved to the hospital and relevant FIR was registered. Police visited the spot and spot map was prepared. The medical examination of the injured revealed that she had sustained simple injuries. After completing all codal formalities and on conclusion of the investigation into the offences, allegedly committed by the accused challan was prepared and filed in the Court. 3. Notice of accusation stood put to the accused by the learned trial Court for his committing offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 279, 337 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses. On closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded in which he pleaded innocence and claimed false implication. He did not choose to lead any evidence in defence. 5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned Courts below returned findings of conviction against the accused. 6. The accused stands aggrieved by the findings of conviction recorded by both the Courts below for his committing offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 279, 337 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned Courts below returned findings of conviction against the accused. 6. The accused stands aggrieved by the findings of conviction recorded by both the Courts below for his committing offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 279, 337 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned counsel appearing for the accused has concerted to vigorously contend qua the findings of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court standing not based on a proper appreciation of evidence on record, rather theirs standing se-quelled by gross mis-appreciation of material on record. Hence, he contends qua the findings of conviction being reversed by this Court, in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction and theirs being replaced by findings of acquittal. 7. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State has with considerable force and vigour, contended qua the findings of conviction recorded by the Courts below standing based on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record and theirs not necessitating any interference rather meriting vindication. 8. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side, has, with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record. 9. The scooter driven in a rash and negligent manner by the accused struck both the complainant Morni Devi and her deceased husband Rojgari Ram. In sequel to the injuries sustained by the husband of the complainant, the latter sustained injuries as pronounced in Ext.PW-3/A, also complainant co-victim/informant Morni Devi as pronounced in Ext.PW- 3/B stood entailed upon her person injuries as depicted therein. As imminent from a perusal of the deposition of the Investigating Officer, Rojgari Ram succumbed at PGI Chandigarh in sequel to the injuries sustained by him on his standing struck by the Scooter driven negligently at the relevant time by the accused/revisionist. The co-victim/ complainant Morni Devi is the only witness examined by the prosecution to sustain the charges against the accused. The co-victim/ complainant Morni Devi is the only witness examined by the prosecution to sustain the charges against the accused. Her sole testimony constitutes firm evidence to repel the espousal of the counsel for the revisionist of thereupon alone this Court not securing findings of conviction against the accused/revisionist especially when her testimony draws succor from the MLCs aforesaid besides from the MLC prepared qua the accused by the doctor concerned, MLC whereof stands embodied in Ext.PW-3/C. The co-victim complainant has with un-equivocality made echoings in her deposition qua the accused/revisionist while driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner his hence striking both her as well as her husband Rojgari Ram, who as aforesaid in sequel to the injuries sustained by him on his standing struck by the scooter driven rashly and negligently by the accused revisionist, succumbed to them. The MLC prepared qua the accused/ revisionist comprised in Ext.PW-3/C is of a day subsequent to the illfated occurrence yet the factum of its preparation occurring a day subsequent to the illfated occurrence would not render it unconnected to the occurrence for constraining this Court to exculpate the guilt of the accused given the factum of PW-3 while proving its contents in his deposition comprised in his examination in chief his not thereat standing held to cross-examination by the learned defence counsel for repelling the factum of the injuries sustained by the accused revisionist as displayed therein holding any relatabilty qua the illfated occurrence. Since the counsel for the accused thereat omitted to put to PW-3 relevant suggestions qua depictions in Ext.PW-3/C of his sustaining injuries on his suffering a fall from a Scooter after its colliding with an old couple a day preceding its preparation suffering falsity, omission whereof fillips an inference of the defence hence acquiescing qua the apposite reflections occurring therein of the injuries detailed therein standing entailed on the person of the accused within 24 hours yet less than 36 hours since his examination stood conducted by the doctor concerned on 27.08.1999 whereupon a concomitant deduction stands filliped of the injuries reflected therein standing efficaciously and empathetically proved qua theirs standing sustained by the accused revisionist in the illfated road mishap. Furthermore, with the defence for reasons aforesaid acquiescing to the reflections in MLC prepared qua the accused with embodiments therein of his sustaining injuries a day preceding its preparation on his suffering a fall from a scooter after its colliding with an old couple rears an inference of the victim even while recording her deposition with disclosures therein of hers at the time contemporaneous to the occurrence holding no knowledge qua the identity of the accused, identity whereof stood purveyed to her subsequently by an unnamed person also the disclosure if any in the deposition of the Investigating Officer of the victim not identifying the accused in a test identification parade held in accordance with law yet not rendering open an inference of hence the identity of the accused standing de-established. Contrarily, the effect of the aforesaid acquiescences is of theirs rendering open an inference qua the identity of the accused in begetting the sequel of the scooter driven by him colliding with the deceased and with the complainant standing empathetically established. In sequel the concurrently recorded findings of conviction against him by both the Courts below stand affirmed. In aftermath, I find no merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed. The judgment of conviction and sentence recorded against the accused by both the Courts below are maintained and affirmed. As the petitioner is on bail, his bail bonds are cancelled. He be taken into custody forthwith to suffer the sentence. Necessary follow up action be taken by the Registry forthwith.