Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2378 (HP)

State of H. P. v. Ashwani Kumar

2016-11-10

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, Judge The instant appeal stands directed by the State of H.P. against the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.3, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. rendered on 21.07.2008 in Police Challan No. 72-II-04, RBT No.437-II-4, whereby, he acquitted the accused/respondent herein for his allegedly committing offences punishable under Sections 279 and 506 of the IPC read with Sections 181, 184 and 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. The facts relevant to decide the instant case are that complainant Ram Narain, Sub Inspector, Enforcement, South Zone, Shimla, made a report at Police Station, Hamirpur, that he had accompanied Dy. S.P. Satish Kumar to Hamirpur. On 20.03.2004, at about 9.15 p.m., he alongwith Rafiq Mohammad and Harnam Singh were going towards rest house through the road that is lying in front of the rest house. A well built person came driving scooter No. HP-22-2952 in a rash and negligent manner and drove it upon him from the wrong side. He at once took a jump and saved himself. When scooter driver was called to stop, he started abusing them and threatened them to his high contacts. One Banarsi Dass Malhotra, who tried to intervene, was also abused. He was threatened by the scooter driver. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, an 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 and 506 of the IPC read with Sections 181, 184 and 196 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 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. 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. 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. The victim/complainant is alleged to be struck by a scooter bearing No. HP-22- 2952 on account of it at the relevant time standing driven in a rash and negligent manner by the accused herein. The prosecution would succeed in establishing the charge to which the accused/respondent herein stood subjected to trial only when the prosecution witnesses consistently depose qua the material factum of the accused/respondent herein at the relevant time negligently driving it also the prosecution by cogent evidence forthrightly unveiling the identity of the accused. The complainant in his testimony has communicated therein qua the scooter at the relevant time being driven on the inappropriate side of the road whereupon it almost struck him, whereas, his by jumping aside overting its striking him, whereas, PW-1, an independent witness to the occurrence has contradictorily deposed of the scooter at the relevant time occupying the appropriate side of the road. Be that as it may, even though occurrence of the aforesaid minimal contradiction intra se the testimony of the victim vis-a-vis the testimony of an independent witness to the occurrence, who testified as PW-1 would obviously not per se render rudderless the propagation of the prosecution. Be that as it may, even though occurrence of the aforesaid minimal contradiction intra se the testimony of the victim vis-a-vis the testimony of an independent witness to the occurrence, who testified as PW-1 would obviously not per se render rudderless the propagation of the prosecution. However, the crucial factum of PW-1 and PW-4 conjointly feigning ignorance qua the identity of the accused besides qua the apposite number borne on the number plate of the scooter whereas evidently with both at the relevant time walking along with the complainant hence held the capacity to disclose in their respective testifications the apposite number borne on the number plate of the scooter also to unanimously depose qua the identity of the accused, whereas, theirs omitting to do so cannot with aplomb lend any impetus to any formidable conclusion of the scooter bearing No. HP-22-2952 at the relevant time standing driven by the accused at the relevant site of occurrence nor it can be convincingly concluded qua the accused at the relevant time driving it wherefrom it is inapt to conclude qua the charge for which the accused/respondent stood tried warranting any inference qua it standing cogently proven. 10. Be that as it may, despite the occurrence taking place at a distance of 15 meters from the police station concerned, whereas, the Investigating Officer visiting the relevant site of occurrence a day subsequent to its taking place, in sequel, the omission of the Investigating Officer to in prompt sequel to the occurrence visit the relevant spot constrains an inference of the spot map prepared by him being a sequel to a machination of engineering and invention deployed by the Investigating Officer whereupon no reliance is imputable. 11. 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 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. 12. 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.