Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1549 (HP)

State of H. P. v. Sanjeev Kumar

2016-08-01

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal is directed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the impugned judgment rendered on 21.04.2006 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No. III, Hamirpur, H.P., whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent (for short ‘accused’) for the offences charged. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 7.12.1999 at about 4.30 p.m. at place Dhamrol, accused Sanjeev Kumar was driving jeep bearing registration No. HP-22-2119 on a public highway. Due to his rash and negligent driving the accused hit the bus bearing registration No. HP-28-2229, as a result of which the occupant of jeep Billa Ram sustained injury. The matter was reported to the police and relevant FIR was registered. Medical examination of the injured revealed that he sustained simple injury. The police visited the spot and prepared the site map. Both the vehicles were taken into possession and got mechanically examined. Photographs of the spot were taken. 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 Section 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 181 of the Motor vehicles Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 12 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 evidence on record, the learned trial Court returned findings of acquittal in favour of the accused. 6. The learned Additional Advocate General has concertedly and vigorously contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court standing not based on a proper appreciation of evidence on record, rather theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation of material on record. Hence, he contends qua the findings of acquittal being reversed by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and theirs being replaced by findings of conviction. 7. Hence, he contends qua the findings of acquittal being reversed by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and theirs being replaced by findings of conviction. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has with considerable force and vigour contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the Court below standing based on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record and theirs not necessitating interference, rather theirs 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 learned trial Court had anvilled its findings of acquittal qua the accused/respondent on the score of an independent ocular witness to the ill-fated occurrence not lending support to the prosecution case. The learned trial Court had discounted the testimonies of PW-4 and PW-5 the conductor and driver of the bus which suffered at the relevant site of occurrence a collision with the vehicle purportedly negligently driven by the accused/respondent. The learned trial Court while discounting the testimonies of the aforesaid ocular witnesses has not assigned any reason. Consequently, the learned Additional Advocate General contends of their respective testimonies though assumingly standing stained with a vice of interestedness arising from the factum of theirs occupying the vehicle which stood at the relevant site of occurrence struck by the vehicle purportedly negligently driven by the accused/respondent. Nonetheless with theirs in their respective depositions with inter-se harmony making a proclamation therein in support of the genesis of the prosecution case contrarily warranted imputation of credibility thereupon. 10. The testimonies of the interested witnesses to the ill-fated occurrence per se would not acquire any vice of interestedness nor would their respective testimonies qua the ill-fated occurrence be rendered bereft of any vigour unless cogent evidence stands displayed qua their rendition of an ocular account qua the occurrence acquiring the taint of falsity. For fathoming the prime factum qua their testimonies standing gripped with a vice of prevarication, the impact of reflections qua the genesis of the occurrence embodied in Ext. PW-7/A, exhibit whereof constitutes the relevant site plan stands enjoined to be alluded. For fathoming the prime factum qua their testimonies standing gripped with a vice of prevarication, the impact of reflections qua the genesis of the occurrence embodied in Ext. PW-7/A, exhibit whereof constitutes the relevant site plan stands enjoined to be alluded. If Ext.PW-7/A holds evidentiary vigour also its revelations holding truth would constrain this Court to hold of the mere fact of an independent ocular witness to the occurrence reneging from his previous statement recorded in writing being in consequential also the effect if any of interestedness of PW-4 and PW-5 in leaning towards the prosecution spurring from theirs being the conductor and driver of the bus with which the vehicle purportedly negligently driven by the accused/respondent collided at the relevant site of occurrence would also stand omnibusly blunted. In aftermath, this Court would conclude of the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court vis-a-vis. the accused meriting interference it arising from gross mis-appreciation by it of the relevant evidence on record. In the endeavour to attach veracity qua the unfoldments occurring in Ext.PW-7/A, the trite factum of PW- 7 who tendered it into evidence acquiescing in his cross-examination of his preparing it when both the vehicles were not available at the site of occurrence renders all the manifestations embodied therein to be both invented as well as surmisal whereupon hence no reliance is imputable. As a corollary, with Ext.PW-7/A loosing its creditworthiness also its probative tenacity standing effaced has a concomitant effect qua the depositions of PW-5 and PW-4 the driver and conductor of the bus with which the vehicle purportedly negligently driven by the accused/respondent collided at the site of occurrence hence standing imbued with a stain of interestedness also theirs acquiring a vice of falsity. 11. Furthermore with PW-1 an independent ocular witness to the ill-fated occurrence reneging from his previous statement recorded in writing when alone holds leeway for this Court to conclude qua his omission hence to not lend succor to the prosecution case holding concurrence with the mis-reflections besides falsity qua the genesis of the occurrence embodied in Ext.PW-7/A. In sequel this Court concludes qua the rendition by PW-4 and PW-5 of an ocular account qua the occurrence standing both engineered besides contrived by the Investigating Officer for their renditions to hold prevaricated concurrence with Ext.PW-7/A exhibit whereof for reasons aforesaid stands concluded to be not depicting the truth qua the occurrence. 12. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned trial Court has appraised the entire evidence on record in a wholesome and harmonious manner apart therefrom the analysis of the material on record by the learned trial Court does not suffer from any perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non appreciation of evidence on record, rather it has aptly appreciated the material available on record. 13. In view of the above, I find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. In sequel, the impugned judgment is affirmed and maintained. Record of the learned trial Court be sent back forthwith.