Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2007 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Partap Singh

2016-09-19

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present appeal is maintained by the appellant-State of Himachal Pradesh against the judgment of acquittal of the accused in a case under Sections 279, 337 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.II, Una, District Una, H.P, dated 5.9.2007, in Criminal Case No.38-I of 1999. 2. Briefly stating the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 1.8.1998 at place Basal, accused/respondent (hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’) was driving a bus bearing registration No.HP-53-0216, on a public road in a rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and while driving accused struck his bus against a Car bearing No. HIU-70, as a result of which complainant S.K. Nanda, sustained simply injury. Complainant got recorded his statement under Section 154, Cr.P.C. with Head Constable Vir Singh and prepared rukka. Thereafter, the same was sent to Police Station for registration of FIR, Ex.PW8/A. The injured was medically examined by PW-10 Dr. Giander Dev and issued MLC Ex.PW4/A. During the course of investigation, bus bearing No.HP-53-0216 and Maruti Car bearing No.HIU-70 alongwith its documents was taken into possession by the police in the presence of witnesses. Both the vehicles are mechanically examined. Reports are Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW9/A. During the course of investigation, photographs of the vehicle in question were also taken and site plan prepared. The statement of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C were recorded. After completing all the codal formalities, the challan was presented in the Court. 3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as 12 witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he has denied the prosecution case and claimed innocence. No defence evidence was led by the accused. 4. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that the appeal is required to be allowed and the accused is liable to be convicted, as the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused has argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and so, the accused was rightly acquitted. 6. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused has argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and so, the accused was rightly acquitted. 6. To appreciate the arguments of learned Additional Advocate General and learned defence counsel, this Court has gone through the record in detail and minutely scrutinized the statements of the witnesses. 7. PW-1 B.R. Kamal, deposed that the documents of Maruti Car in question was taken into possession, vide fard Ex.PW1/A, in his presence. PW-2 Satpal, has mechanically examined the accidental Maruti Car and prepared report Ex.PW2/A. PW-3 Daulat Ram and PW-4 Dr. S.K. Nanda, complainant, have supported the prosecution story and deposed that the accused was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner due to which accident had taken place. PW-3 in his cross-examination has deposed that the speed of the car in which they were present, was 50 to 60 KM per hour and if speed of the vehicle is 50-60, it will be considered to be moving at a high speed. He has also deposed that the bus struck with the car in which they were travelling from the front side and the car was stopped there. PW-4 Dr. S.K. Nanda, has deposed that the accident had taken place due to the negligence on the part of the accused, who was in a high speed. He has also deposed that after the accident, the car moved 15 to 20 feet and then stopped. The Car which was said to have been rashly hit by the bus being driven by the accused have been damaged from the side and the tinsheet of the driver seat is also present near the rear of the Maruti Car is also clear from Ex.PW12/A and Ex.PW12/B. PW-5 Munshi Ram, also taken into possession the Registration Certificate, route permit, log book and driving licence of the accused, vide fard Ex.PW5/A. PW-8 Inspector Saroop Singh, had received rukka, on the basis of which FIR Ex.PW8/A was registered. PW-9 Hoshiar Singh, has deposed that the front portion of the bus in question was not damaged and found fit. PW-10 Dr. Giander Dev, examined the injured and issued MLC Ex.PW4/A. PW-11 HC Bir Singh with whom complainant had got recorded his statement under Section 154 Cr. PC. PW-9 Hoshiar Singh, has deposed that the front portion of the bus in question was not damaged and found fit. PW-10 Dr. Giander Dev, examined the injured and issued MLC Ex.PW4/A. PW-11 HC Bir Singh with whom complainant had got recorded his statement under Section 154 Cr. PC. PW-12 Kuldeep Singh, had taken the photographs of the damage vehicle. 8. Though, PW-3 Daulat Ram and PW-4 Dr. S.K. Nanda, have stated that the bus was being driven at a high speed and struck with the Car in which they were travelling in the front side and the Car was stopped there. They have also stated that the Car was being driven at a speed of 50 to 60 KM per hour. At the same point of time, it is stated by PW-4 that after the accident the Car moved 15 to 20 feet and then stopped. The photographs also shows that the damage was caused due to the drag of the bus. As per the defence, the accident has occurred due to the reason that driver of the Car could not control his vehicle and it struck with the back portion of the bus. No paint etc. was found on the front side of the bus shows that it was only the rear portion of the bus which struck against the side of the Car. In these circumstances, whether the accident has occurred due to the negligence of the Car driver or due to the negligence of the bus driver is not certain. So, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 9. It has been held in K. Prakashan vs. P.K. Surenderan (2008) 1 SCC 258 , that when two views are possible, appellate Court should not reverse the judgment of acquittal merely because the other view was possible. When judgment of trial Court was neither perverse, nor suffered from any legal infirmity or non consideration/misappreciation of evidence on record, reversal thereof by High Court was not justified. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in T. Subramanian vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2006) 1 SCC 401 , has held that where two views are reasonably possible from the very same evidence, prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 11. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in T. Subramanian vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2006) 1 SCC 401 , has held that where two views are reasonably possible from the very same evidence, prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 11. So, in my considered view the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused conclusively and beyond reasonable doubt. There is no illegality and infirmity in the findings, so recorded by the learned trial Court. 12. In view of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and discussion made above, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Record of the learned trial Court be sent back forthwith.