Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2253 (HP)

Karam Chand v. State of H. P.

2016-10-21

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The learned trial Court convicted the accused/revisionist for his committing offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It also imposed upon the accused/convict consequent sentences for his committing the afore referred penal misdemeanors. The learned trial Court proceeded to hence sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000 for commission of an offence punishable under Section 279 of the IPC. In default of payment of fine amount, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. He was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to a pay fine of Rs.500/- for commission of an offence under Section 337 of the IPC. In default of payment of fine he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. He was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for commission of an offence punishable under Section 304-A of the IPC and in default of payment of fine he was sentenced to undergo further imprisonment for one month. He was further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for commission of an offence punishable under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act and in default of payment of fine he was sentenced to undergo further imprisonment for one month All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The accused/convict preferred an appeal therefrom before the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, H.P. The Appellate Court rendered a judgment in affirmation to the verdict of conviction and consequent sentences recorded against him by the learned trial Court. The accused/convict has been hence led to therefrom institute the instant revision petition before this Court seeking therein the setting aside of the concurrently recorded findings of convictions and consequent sentences imposed upon him by both the learned Courts below. 2. The facts relevant to decide the instant case are that on 23.11.2009 an information was received from the Hospital that one person had succumbed to his injuries sustained in an accident. 2. The facts relevant to decide the instant case are that on 23.11.2009 an information was received from the Hospital that one person had succumbed to his injuries sustained in an accident. PW7 alongwith HHC Gautam visited Mission Hospital, Kullu in connection with the investigation of the present case and recorded statement of PW1 Sunny Kumar under Section 154, Cr.P.C. As per statement of PW-1, he had gone in his taxi along with a passenger towards Bahang on 20.11.2009. At about 9 a.m., he was taking tea at Bahang. At the relevant time, one person came on motor cycle from Palchan side and deceased Angchuk was hit with the motor cycle bearing No. HP34A-833. The injured Angchuk was shifted to hospital by PW1 in his taxi. The deceased died in the Mission Hospital on 22/23/11/2009. The Investigating Officer sent the statement to the police station and FIR Ex.PW6/A was prepared. The documents of the motor cycle were seized and mechanical report was procured. Statements of the witnesses were recorded as per their version. In the investigation the police came to the conclusion that due to rash and negligent driving of the motor cyclist the accident has occurred, hence, the accused was arrested on 25.11.2009. The police completed all the codel formalities. 3. On conclusion of investigations, into the offences, allegedly committed by the accused, a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was prepared and filed before the learned trial Court. 4. The accused was charged by the learned trial Court for his committing offences under Sections 279, 304-A of the IPC and Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses. On conclusion of recording of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused/convict under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded by the learned trial Court in which the accused claimed innocence and pleaded false implication in the case. 5. On an appraisal of evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of conviction against the accused/convict. In an appeal preferred by the accused/revisionist before the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, the latter affirmed the verdict of conviction and consequent sentences recorded against the accused/convict by the learned trial Court for his committing offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A of the IPC and under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 6. In an appeal preferred by the accused/revisionist before the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, the latter affirmed the verdict of conviction and consequent sentences recorded against the accused/convict by the learned trial Court for his committing offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A of the IPC and under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 6. The accused/convict is aggrieved by the judgments of conviction recorded by both the learned courts below. The learned counsel for the accused/convict has concertedly and vigorously contended qua the findings of conviction recorded by both the learned Courts below 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 conviction standing 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 Additional Advocate General has with considerable force and vigour, contended qua the findings of conviction recorded by both the Courts 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 deceased, one Angchuk, in sequel to his standing struck with the motor cycle driven at the relevant time by the accused/revisionist sustained injuries on his person, injuries whereof stand depicted in MLC, Ex.PW5/A. For receiving treatment for the injuries gained by him in the alleged occurrence, he was taken to Mission Hospital, Kullu whereat he succumbed to them. In sequel thereto PW-4 Dr. Raj Kumar conducted postmortem examination on the body of deceased Angchuk. Postmortem report is comprised in Ex.PW4/A. A perusal whereof discloses qua the demise of Angchuk standing sequelled by a head injury leading to subdural haematoma intracesebral haematoma. The aforesaid cause as stands ascribed in Ex.PW4/A qua the demise of Angchuk holds a nexus with the injuries depicted in MLC, Ex.PW5/A, injuries wehreof stand proven to be suffered by him in sequel to his person standing struck with a motor cycle allegedly driven in a rash and negligent manner by the accused/revisionist. The aforesaid cause as stands ascribed in Ex.PW4/A qua the demise of Angchuk holds a nexus with the injuries depicted in MLC, Ex.PW5/A, injuries wehreof stand proven to be suffered by him in sequel to his person standing struck with a motor cycle allegedly driven in a rash and negligent manner by the accused/revisionist. A careful perusal of the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C., specifically with his answering in the affirmative, the apposite question No.2 occurring therein wherewithin recitals occur of his on the relevant day driving motorcycle bearing No. HP-34A-833, is per se a pronounced portrayal of his acquiescing to the factum of his at the relevant time driving the aforesaid motorcycle. However, the learned counsel appearing for the accused/revisionist contends of the aforesaid acquiescence of the accused/revisionist would not ipso facto beget a conclusion qua the charge for which accused/revisionist stood tried standing unflinchingly proven. He contends of with PW-1 Sunny Kumar making a report qua the ill-fated occurrence which took place on 20.11.2009 belatedly on 23.11.2009 also when no sound tangible explanation stands purveyed by the prosecution in explication of the aforesaid delay, concomitantly renders the belated recording of the statements of PW-1 Sunny Kumar and PW-8 Vikas Thakur by the Investigating Officer being construable to be a clever ploy deployed by the Investigating Officer for falsely implicating the accused/revisionist, whereupon, he contends qua their depositions qua the ill-fated occurrence recorded before the learned trial Court also losing their creditworthiness. 10. The aforesaid submission addressed by the learned counsel appearing for the accused/revisionist ought to suffer the ill-fate of it warranting negation significantly when PW-1 in his examination-in-chief has made vivid echoings therewithin qua the accused/revisionist while driving his motorcycle at the relevant time his being negligent in driving it, negligence whereof stands bespoken therein to stand comprised in his driving his vehicle at an excessive brazen pace besides his being unmindful to the fact of the deceased occupying the road while his concerting to cross over to its other side. The aforesaid ascription by PW-1 qua hence the accused/revisionist despite sighting the deceased to occupy the road his hence abandoning to adhere to the standards of due care and caution, abandonment whereof qua his enjoined duty to adhere to the standards of due care and caution stands pronounced by his omitting to apply the brakes of the motorcycle whereat he was atop whereupon, hence, the ill-fated mishap may stand obviated, has remained unconcerted to be repulsed by the learned defence counsel while holding him for cross-examination, significantly when therewithin there is no apposite suggestion put to PW-1 by the learned defence counsel while subjecting him to cross-examination in portrayal of the accused/revisionist in the manner aforesaid concerting to obviate the ill-fated mishap. Contrarily, in the cross-examination to which PW-1 stood subjected to by the learned defence counsel a suggestion stood put to him qua his at the relevant time standing positioned at the dhaba of a Nepali located adjoining a curve. PW-1 answered the aforesaid suggestion in the affirmative. The effect of the aforesaid suggestion answered in the affirmative by PW-1 when read in coagulation with the further affirmative suggestion put to him by the learned defence counsel while his standing held to cross-examination by the learned defence counsel, suggestion whereof stands couched in a phraseology qua the deceased while standing by the side of the curve his being sightable from the dhaba whereat he stood positioned, suggestion whereof stood answered affirmatively, is a magnifying display of the defence conceding to the factum of PW-1 rendering a credible ocular account qua the occurrence. Furthermore, the effect of the aforesaid inference is of the delay, if any, occurring in the lodging of the FIR holding no consequence, especially when PW-1 pronounces in his examination-in-chief qua in sequel to the deceased standing struck with the motorcycle allegedly driven rashly by the accused/revisionist his suffering injuries on his person, for treatment whereof his carrying him to hospital wherefrom it can be concluded qua his hence standing precluded to promptly report the incident. Consequently, reinforcingly it can be concluded qua the Investigating Officer not by sheer contrivance introducing PW-1 as a witness to the occurrence also his belatedly recording his statement qua the occurrence holds no element of his employing a stratagem for falsely implicating the accused nor it can be concluded therefrom of PW-1 being an invented witness to the occurrence. 11. Consequently, reinforcingly it can be concluded qua the Investigating Officer not by sheer contrivance introducing PW-1 as a witness to the occurrence also his belatedly recording his statement qua the occurrence holds no element of his employing a stratagem for falsely implicating the accused nor it can be concluded therefrom of PW-1 being an invented witness to the occurrence. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the accused/revisionist has contended of with another eye witness to the occurrence, who deposed as PW-8 making communications in his testification qua the deceased proceeding to tread upon the road without holding any awareness qua the occupation of the road at the relevant time by the motorcycle on which the accused/revisionist was atop also his exculpating the purported penal misdemeanor of the accused/revisionist, scuttling the effect of the testimony of PW-8. However, even if, the aforesaid communication qua the occurrence stand testified by PW-8, nonetheless, the counsel for the accused cannot make any capitalization therefrom, significantly when for the reasons aforestated (a) the learned counsel while holding PW-1 to cross-examination has been unable to tear the efficacy of his testimony qua the ill-fated occurrence comprised in his examination-in-chief; (b) when for reasons aforestated the defence concedes to the factum of PW-1 at the relevant time sighting the occurrence and (c) even if, PW-8 has not deposed a version qua the occurrence with omnibus parameteria affinity vis-a-vis the testimony rendered qua it by PW-1 yet with the motorcycle driven by the accused/revisionist standing proven to at the relevant time occupy the road also with his at the relevant time provenly striking the deceased, who thereat was attempting to cross the road, the accused/revisionist was obliged to by applying the brakes of the motorcycle ensure obviation of the accident whereas he has evidently omitted to do so significantly when it was not incumbent upon the deceased pedestrian, who was concerting to cross the road, to obviate the mishap, especially when no evidence surges forth qua the deceased abruptly appearing on the road without giving any opportunity to the accused to apply the brakes of his motorcycle, contrarily is a omnibus display of the accused wantonly wandering astray from adhering to the standards of due care and caution. In aftermath his penal inculpation for the penal misdemeanors is warranted. 12. In aftermath his penal inculpation for the penal misdemeanors is warranted. 12. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that both the learned Courts below have appraised the entire evidence on record in a wholesome and harmonious manner apart therefrom the analysis of the material on record by both the learned Courts below does not suffer from any perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non appreciation of evidence on record. 13. Consequently, there is no merit in the instant petition and the same is dismissed. In sequel, the judgments impugned hereat are maintained and affirmed. Records be sent back forthwith.