Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2367 (HP)

State of H. P. v. Khem Chand

2016-11-09

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, Judge The instant appeal stands directed against the impugned judgement recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, whereby he reversed the findings of conviction recorded upon the accused by the learned trial Court and acquitted the accused respondent herein for his allegedly committing offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 IPC. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 9th July, 2002 at 3.40 p.m. on duty pharmacist, DDU Hospital, Shimla, informed Police Station, Sadar, Shimla that a lady has been brought to the hospital in an injured condition. On this information H.C Lal Singh and constable Rai Singh were sent to DDU Hospital for investigation vide daily diary Ext.PW-9/A. The complainant made a statement Ext.PW-2/A that her daughter in law was admitted in Ripon Hospital, Shimla for the last 10-12 days and she came to Shimla to see her. When she wanted to cross the road near Ripon Hospital, a red coloured car came and hit her from right side. The car was being driven rashly and negligently. She has stated that she suffered injuries on the right side of the body. The number of the car was noted by her nephew Ramesh Kumar. In the meantime, a Traffic Police constable came there and stopped the car. She was taken to hospital by Ramesh Kumar and other people. Upon the aforesaid statement, formal F.I.R was registered. The Investigating Officer prepared the site plan on the spot and took into possession the offending vehicle. After completing all codal formalities and on conclusion of the investigation into the offence, allegedly committed by the accused challan was prepared and filed in the Court. 3. A charge stood put to the accused by the learned trial Court for his committing offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 8 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 trial Court returned findings of conviction against the accused whereas the learned Sessions Judge returned findings of acquittal in favour of the accused. 6. He did not choose to lead any evidence in defence. 5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court returned findings of conviction against the accused whereas the learned Sessions Judge returned findings of acquittal in favour of the accused. 6. The learned Deputy Advocate General has concertedly and vigorously contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge standing not based on a proper appreciation by him of evidence on record, rather, theirs standing sequelled by gross misappreciation by him 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. 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. In sequel to the victim injured standing struck with the vehicle allegedly driven in a rash and negligent manner by the accused respondent herein, she begot injuries on her person, injuries whereof stand reflected in MLC Ext.PW-6/A. The injuries which stand pronounced therein stand testified by PW-6 to arise by user thereon of a blunt weapon. Also in Ext.PW-6/A there occurs a disclosure qua on the victim standing brought for examination before PW-6 hers divulging to the latter qua hers standing struck by a bus. The aforesaid revelation occurring in Ext.PW-6/A when holds an apparent contra-distinctivity vis-a-vis. the ascription made by her in the F.I.R qua hers begetting the injuries pronounced in Ext.PW-6/A on hers standing struck with the vehicle allegedly driven in a rash and negligent manner by the accused respondent herein does scuttle the vigour of the ascriptions made by her in the F.I.R. embodying therein qua the accused while negligently driving his vehicle, his striking her also denudes the vigour of her testimony holding therein communications in tandem therewith. Furthermore, with PW-6 in her testification proclaiming therein qua the injuries reflected in Ext.PW-6/A standing caused by user of blunt weapon also perse when holds no connectivity with the testification of the injured victim wherein she discloses qua hers standing entailed with injuries reflected in Ext.PW-6/A on hers standing struck with the car purportedly driven in a rash and negligent manner by the accused/respondent herein whereupon cumulatively hence with dichotomy also occurring intra se the testification of the victim vis-a-vis the testification of PW-6 qua the cause of injury delineated in Ext.PW-6/A, renders the genesis of the prosecution case embodied in the F.I.R. to stand not convincingly established. 10. Be that as it may, the prosecution had relied upon the testimony of PW-5 a purported eye witness to the occurrence who in his testification lends corroborative succor to the testification of the victim injured. However, his testimony wherewithin communications are held of his sighting the accused/respondent herein to strike the victim/injured at the place pronounced in site plan comprised in Ext.PW-8/A also wherewithin he pronounces qua the car driven by the accused purportedly in a rash and negligent manner arriving thereat from the lift side, does not command any probative vigour significantly when it is in rife contradiction with the relevant manifestations occurring in Ext.PW-8/A, contrarily wherein the car allegedly driven in a rash and negligent manner by the accused stands disclosed to arrive from a side other than the one divulged by PW-5 whereupon his testimony is to be concluded to stand ridden with a vice of invention besides concoction also thereupon when apparently he was not available at the site of occurrence his testification in purported corroboration to the testification of the victim injured who has deposed as PW-2, is legally unworthwhile. 11. Be that as it may, even though the sole testimony of the victim/injured was sufficient to constrain this Court to return findings of conviction upon the accused respondent nonetheless with the aforesaid reason assigned by this Court for dispelling the vigour of her testimony contrarily prods this Court to conclude qua her version loosing veracity. 11. Be that as it may, even though the sole testimony of the victim/injured was sufficient to constrain this Court to return findings of conviction upon the accused respondent nonetheless with the aforesaid reason assigned by this Court for dispelling the vigour of her testimony contrarily prods this Court to conclude qua her version loosing veracity. Also the vigour of her testimony stands denuded by the factum of hers deposing qua at the relevant time when she alighted from the bus, one Ramesh in simultaneity with her also alighting therefrom whereas with the aforesaid Ramesh standing neither cited as a prosecution witness nor obviously his statement coming to be recorded whereas his testimony constituted the best evidence to lend succor to the prosecution case. Consequently, when the adverse effect of his non examination stands construed in entwinement with the inference aforestated qua the testimony of the injured wanting in any tenacity also when is construed in coagulation with the legally frail testimony of a purported eye witness to the occurrence who deposed as PW-5 whereupon an inference qua its hence wanting in any legal vigour is erectable, constrains this Court to conclude qua the propagation made by the prosecution standing bereft of truth. 12. The learned Deputy Advocate General has contended of with PW-2 in her testification comprised in her examination in chief divulging therein qua hers while after alighting the bus hers taking to proceed to DDU hospital wherebefore she testifies qua hers looking around for ascertaining whether the vehicles from the apposite side had arrived thereat whereupon with hers despite hence adhering to the standards of due care and caution hers standing struck by the vehicle driven by the accused while its standing driven by him at a brazen pace, when has remained unrebutted does hold visible echoings of the defence acquiescing to the inculpation of the accused respondent. However, the aforesaid submission stands negated preeminently when Ext.PW-8/A makes a disclosure of the purported incident occurring in close proximity to the road leading onwards to the DDU hospital whereat uncontrovertedly the victim/injured alighted from the bus whereon she was aboard as a passenger besides when the vehicle driven by the accused respondent stands not displayed by invincible evidence to stand driven on the inappropriate side of the road rather when it stands displayed by Ext.PW-8/A to occur at point =E' thereof location whereof, is in close proximity to the road leading to DDU hospital, begets an inference of the victim injured abruptly arriving at the relevant site of occurrence unnoticing the car driven by the accused which came from the apposite direction wherefrom hence it is to be concluded qua her testimony qua hers adhering to the standards of due care and caution being incredible contrarily it is to be concluded of her abrupt appearance at the relevant site causing the mishap bereft of any element of penally inculpable negligence. 13. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned Sessions Judge 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 Sessions Judge 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. 14. In view of the above, I find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. In sequel, the impugned judgement is affirmed and maintained. Record of the learned trial Court be sent back forthwith.