Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 40 (HP)

State Of H. P. v. Vikram Singh

2016-01-05

RAJIV SHARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. This appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 30.8.2006 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala in Criminal Appeal No. 14-N/2001 whereby the judgment of conviction dated 18.6.2001 rendered by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Court No. II), Dharamshala in Criminal Case No. 229-2-K/99 was aside. Hence, the present appeal. 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that the police received telephonic information from Zonal Hospital; Dharamshala that one woman was brought to the hospital after an accident. Police went to the hospital. Statement of PW-1 Vijender Singh was recorded under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to him, he was working in his fields at about 5.00 P.M. on the road side and on the opposite direction, one Smt. Surindera Devi wife of Onkar Singh resident of Nichla Sakoh alongwith her daughter Reeta was cutting grass. A Mahindra jeep came from Kachahari side in a high speed and hit Smt. Surindera Devi. Jeep dragged her about 15 feet. Thereafter, the jeep turned turtle. Smt. Surindera lost her conscious and collapsed on the road. The occupants of the jeep ran away from the spot. Smt. Surindera Devi was taken to hospital. She succumbed to her injuries. Post mortem was conducted. FIR was lodged. The police investigated the case and the challan was put up in the Court after completing all the codal formalities. 3. Learned Judicial Magistrate after putting up notice of accusation to the accused for an offence under sections 279 and 304-A IPC read with sections 184 and 187 of the Motor Vehicle Act convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months under section 304-A IPC and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months under section 279 IPC. The accused was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-each under sections 184 and 187 of the Motor Vehicle Act and in default of payment of fine, the accused was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Accused filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala. He allowed the same. Hence, the present appeal. 4. Mr. Parmod Thakur, learned Addl. A.G. has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused. 5. Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate has supported the judgment dated 30.8.2006. 6. Accused filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala. He allowed the same. Hence, the present appeal. 4. Mr. Parmod Thakur, learned Addl. A.G. has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused. 5. Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate has supported the judgment dated 30.8.2006. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgments and record meticulously. 7. PW-1 Vijender Singh has deposed that on 6th September, 1999 at about 5.15 P.M., he was cutting grass in his field adjacent to road. On his right side, Surindera Devi and her daughter Reeta Devi were cutting grass. The vehicle came from Dharamshala side in a high speed. It hit Surindera Devi. She was dragged to a distance of 15-20 meters. The jeep turned turtle on the left side. Surindera Devi became unconscious. The driver and passengers ran away in other vehicles. Surindera Devi died in the hospital. Police recorded his statement under section 154 Cr.P.C. vide Ex. PW-1/A. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he has not informed the police about the accident. He has not stated that he has seen the accused driving the jeep on the fateful day. 8. PW-2 Ms. Reeta Devi has deposed that she was student of BA-III. On 6.9.1999 at about 5.00/5.15 P.M., she was cutting grass on the road side with her mother. The jeep was going towards Dharamshala. They were raising slogans. The vehicle was at a high speed. The jeep came from the higher side and dragged her mother 20-25 meters. She raised hue and cry. The occupants of the vehicle did not listen to her and they ran away in other vehicles. She had seen the accused running from the spot. The accident was caused due to excessive speed. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that she was not aware whether the driver was driving the vehicle or sitting in the vehicle with other occupants. 9. PW-4 Pawan Kumar has deposed that he was driver of the jeep. The owner was Sh. Satish Kumar. They had gone to attend the rally. The vehicle was snatched by the accused. He was drunk and told him that he would drive the vehicle. The vehicle struck against a lady. She died on the spot. The jeep turned turtle. The other occupants ran away from the spot. The owner was Sh. Satish Kumar. They had gone to attend the rally. The vehicle was snatched by the accused. He was drunk and told him that he would drive the vehicle. The vehicle struck against a lady. She died on the spot. The jeep turned turtle. The other occupants ran away from the spot. The vehicle was driven at a high speed. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that he had told the police that the vehicle was snatched by the accused. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that they ran away from the spot. In case his vehicle was snatched and he had told the police, there was no occasion for him to travel in the same jeep. Thus, his statement has rightly been discarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 10. PW-5 Des Raj has deposed that Satish was owner of the vehicle. PW-4 Pawan Kumar was the driver of the vehicle. However, fact of the matter is that he was not on the spot when the vehicle was allegedly snatched by the accused. 11. PW-6 Rajnish Kumar has deposed that he had also gone to attend the rally. He did not know who was the driver of the vehicle. He did not know anything about the accident. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned Asstt. Public Prosecutor. In his cross-examination, by the defence counsel, he has deposed that no accident has taken place in his presence. 12. PW-7 Shiv Kumar has deposed that he was a student of B.A. final year. He did not know who was driving the jeep in question. The vehicle was being plied at the normal speed. The vehicle struck against a woman at Sakoh. She was dragged to a distance of about 10-15 feet. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned Asstt. Public Prosecutor. In his cross-examination by the defence counsel, he deposed that perhaps the vehicle was being driven by the driver of the jeep. 13. PW-9 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that he was not in a position to narrate who was driving the jeep. He was declared hostile by the learned Asstt. Public Prosecutor and cross-examined. He has denied that the accident has taken place in his presence. 14. PW-10 Amrik Singh was the Investigating Officer. 13. PW-9 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that he was not in a position to narrate who was driving the jeep. He was declared hostile by the learned Asstt. Public Prosecutor and cross-examined. He has denied that the accident has taken place in his presence. 14. PW-10 Amrik Singh was the Investigating Officer. In his cross-examination he has deposed that it has come in the investigation that the vehicle involved in the accident was brought by Pawan Kumar. 15. What emerges from the evidence discussed hereinabove is that none of the witnesses have seen the accused driving the jeep. Neither PW-1 Vijender Singh nor PW-2 Ms. Reeta Devi has deposed that the accused was driving the vehicle. In her cross-examination, PW-2 Ms. Reeta Devi has deposed that she did not know who was driving the vehicle and who were other occupants of the jeep. Statement of PW-4 Pawan Kumar does not inspire confidence for the simple reason that in case the vehicle was snatched by the accused, he would have not boarded the jeep. PW-6 Rajnish was declared hostile. In his cross-examination by the learned defence counsel, he has deposed that no accident has taken place in his presence. Similarly, PW-7 Shiv Kumar in his cross-examination by the learned defence counsel has deposed that perhaps the vehicle was driven by the driver of the jeep. PW-9 has denied the suggestion by the learned A.P.P., after he was declared hostile, that accident took place in his presence. 16. Consequently, in view of analysis and discussion made hereinabove, the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused for offences punishable under section 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 184 and 187 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Thus, there is no need to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala. 17. Accordingly, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.