Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2377 (HP)

State of H. P. v. Kheera Mani

2016-11-10

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal stands directed by the State of H.P. against the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.4, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. rendered on 18.06.2008 in Police Challan No. 263/1/04/03 or 263/II/04/03, whereby, he acquitted the accused/respondent herein for his allegedly committing offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC. 2. The facts relevant to decide the instant case are that on 13.02.2003 at about 11.45 a.m., at place Hanogi Bridge, accused was driving Swaraj Mazda bearing registration No.HP-33A-535 and was coming from the side of Pandoh and a bus bearing registration HP-37-2559 was going towards Kullu and since the accused was driving the Swaraz Mazda in a rash and negligent manner, so he dashed the vehicle against the bus due to which the occupants of the bus sustained injuries. On the aforesaid facts, FIR was registered in the police station concerned. The police started the investigations in the case and completed all the codel formalities. 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 19 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, he did not lead any defence evidence. 5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of acquittal in favour of the accused/respondent herein. 6. The State of H.P. is aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court. The learned Deputy 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 the evidence on record, rather, theirs standing sequelled by gross misappreciation 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. On the other hand, the learned defence counsel has with considerable force and vigour, contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned 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. A collision occurred inter se a swaraz mazda driven at the relevant time by the accused/respondent and a bus driven at the relevant time by PW-10. In sequel, to the collision which occurred inter se a swaraz mazda and a bus , the driver of the bus begot on his person injuries reflected in Ex.PW9/A whereas other occupants of the bus also sustained injuries on their respective persons. The prosecution version stood consistently testified by the prosecution witnesses. Unfoldments occur in the deposition of PW-13 qua at the relevant time a fully loaded swaraz mazda occupying the correct side of the road. Both PW-2 and PW-3 consistently depose qua at the relevant time the relevant vehicle driven by the accused moving upwards. Also they in their respective testifications make articulations therein qua its being heavily loaded besides it standing driven at a slow speed. Contrarily, they depose qua the bus driven at the relevant time by PW-10 whereon they were occupants standing driven at a high speed. The depositions of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses make vivid unfoldments qua (a) the swaraz mazda truck driven at the relevant time by the accused/respondent moving upward; (b) it being heavily loaded; (c) it standing driven at a slow speed and (d) its occupying the correct side of the road. Moreover, the depositions of the aforesaid witnesses underscore the factum of obviously the vehicle driven at the relevant time by PW-10 occupying the inappropriate side of the road also its at the relevant time standing driven at a brazen pace by PW-10. Moreover, the depositions of the aforesaid witnesses underscore the factum of obviously the vehicle driven at the relevant time by PW-10 occupying the inappropriate side of the road also its at the relevant time standing driven at a brazen pace by PW-10. The effect of the aforesaid testifications of the prosecution witnesses qua the relevant bus driven at the relevant time by PW-10 occupying the inappropriate side of the road and its being driven at a brazen pace when read in coagulation with the evident testified fact qua the relevant vehicle driven by the accused occupying the correct side of the road also with its at the relevant time standing driven by the accused at a slow speed imperatively warrants an inference of PW-10 being negligent in driving his bus. Consequently, any imputation of penal negligence to the accused/respondent herein is unwarranted. 10. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned trial Court below 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. 11. Consequently, there is no merit in the instant appeal which is accordingly dismissed and the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court in favour of the accused/respondent herein is affirmed and maintained. Records be sent back forthwith.