Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2376 (HP)

State of H. P. v. Ravinder Kumar

2016-11-10

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The accused/respondent herein stood convicted by the learned trial for his committing offences punishable under Section 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC. On his standing aggrieved by the verdict by the learned trial Court, he carried an appeal therefrom before the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. whereby the latter reversed the findings of conviction recorded upon the accused/respondent by the learned trial Court. The State of H.P. stands aggrieved by the verdict of the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur whereupon it by preferring an appeal herebefore concerts to beget its reversal. 2. The facts relevant to decide the instant case are that on 9.9.2004, the complainant had gone to Mehre Bazar. After purchasing some articles, she was proceeding towards the bus-stand at Mehre on her own side at about 4.40 p.m., and while, she was in front of Punam General Store, a jeep trolla came from behind in a rash and negligent manner and crushed her right foot. She made a cry and the trolla was stopped by the driver. Its number was HP-21-0545. The trolla driver disclosed his name as Ravinder Kumar. It is stated that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Ravinder Kumar. On the aforesaid facts, FIR was registered in the police station concerned and thereafter the police completed all the formalities relating to the investigations. 3. On conclusion of the investigations, into the offences, allegedly committed by the accused, a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was prepared and filed in the competent Court. 4. The accused was charged by the learned trial Court for his committing offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses. On conclusion of recording of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded by the trial Court, in which he claimed innocence and pleaded false implication. However, the accused examined two witnesses in his defence. 5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of conviction against the accused/respondent herein. However, the accused examined two witnesses in his defence. 5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of conviction against the accused/respondent herein. In an appeal preferred by the accused/respondent before the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, the latter set aside the conviction and consequent sentences recorded by the learned trial Court against the accused/convict for his committing the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC. 6. The State of H.P. is aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Hampur, H.P.. The learned Deputy Advocate General has concertedly and vigorously contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Appellate Court standing not based on a proper appreciation of the 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. On the other hand, the learned defence counsel has with considerable force and vigour, contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, H.P., 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 victim/injured PW-7 sustained injuries as pronounced in Ex.PW10/A. The injuries borne thereon make a vivid portrayal qua hers suffering injuries on the right toe of her foot. However, the version propagated by the prosecution in the relevant FIR comprised in Ex.PW9/A is qua the accused/respondent while rashly and negligently driving his vehicle his striking the complainant from the rear. The victim/injured PW-7 sustained injuries as pronounced in Ex.PW10/A. The injuries borne thereon make a vivid portrayal qua hers suffering injuries on the right toe of her foot. However, the version propagated by the prosecution in the relevant FIR comprised in Ex.PW9/A is qua the accused/respondent while rashly and negligently driving his vehicle his striking the complainant from the rear. Though, the victim/injured has deposed in tandem with her previous statement comprised in Ex.PW7/A also though the site plan purveys succor to her testification, however, the factum of hers suffering an injury on the right toe of her foot on hers standing struck from the rear by the relevant vehicle allegedly rashly and negligently driven by the accused is per se, a sheered blatant concoction arising from the factum of thereupon the victim/injured would not stand entailed with injuries on the right toe of her foot, it facing a direction opposite to the one whereat she stood struck. Contrarily, she standing struck from the rear warranted infliction of injuries on her back besides in sequel thereto she imperatively was to suffer a fall with her face falling on the road, whereon also injuries were enjoined to occur. However, reflections occurring in the apposite MLC comprised in Ex.PW10/A do not bear out the propagation of the prosecution qua hers standing struck from the rear, conspicuously, when thereupon as aforestated she was to suffer injuries on her back besides on her face, whereas, with Ex.PW10/A omitting to pronounce the aforesaid factum, in sequel, the vigour of the prosecution case loses its creditworthiness besides its tenacity. 10. 10. Be that as it may, one of the prosecution witnesses, namely, PW-1 Meenakashi Devi has conceded to the suggestion put to her by the learned defence counsel while holding her for cross-examination qua one foot of the victim occupying the road whereas the other foot occupying the stair case of a shoe shop whereupon credence is acquired by the espousal of the defence of the victim being in the process of alighting from the stair case of a shoe shop, whereas, hers omitting to take due care and caution qua arrival thereat of the relevant vehicle, she yet alighting from the stair case of a shoe shop whereupon her foot stood crushed under the tyres of the vehicle driven by the accused/respondent, also the efficacy of the aforesaid inference gets enhanced significantly when the aforesaid revelations stand unborne in the relevant testifications of the prosecution witnesses whereupon a sequel is derivable qua their testimonies not warranting imputation of credence thereto also therefrom it is to be concluded qua the factum/injured abruptly arriving at the relevant site, whereupon, the accused/respondent hence stood precluded to sight her whereupon hence any purported negligence imputed to him cannot hold any element of penal inculpability. 11. 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. 12. Consequently, there is no merit in the instant appeal which is accordingly dismissed and the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in favour of the accused/respondent herein is affirmed and maintained. Records be sent back forthwith.