Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 680 (HP)

Baldev Singh v. State of H. P.

2016-05-05

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The accused/revisionist is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Section 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. On conclusion of the trial to which he stood subjected to, the learned trial Court recorded findings of conviction against the accused/convict for his committing offence under afore referred penal provisions. The learned trial Court proceeded to hence sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for commission of offence under Section 304-A of the IPC besides sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine he was sentenced to undergo further imprisonment for two months. In so far as qua offence constituted under Section 279, IPC qua commission whereof, the learned trial Court also recorded findings of conviction against the accused, it proceeded to sentence him to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The accused/convict preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Una against the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded against him by the learned trial Court. The Appellate Court rendered a judgment in affirmation to the conviction and sentence as stood recorded against him by the learned trial Court. The accused/convict has been led to institute the instant revision petition therefrom before this Court seeking therein the setting aside of findings of convictions and consequent sentences concurrently imposed upon him by both the learned Courts below. 2. The facts relevant to decide the instant case are that on 16.3.2005, at about 6.15 P.M, PW-1 Sarwan Kumar while coming out from the STD booth had noticed that a HRTC bus was dropping passengers on the road and in the meanwhile, the accused Baldev Singh had come driving a HRTC bus at a very high speed bearing No. HP-36A-7511. While overtaking the stationary bus, he came to the wrong side and hit a boy named Sahil. He was crushed beneath the front and the rear tyres of the bus. The child had died on the spot. On the basis of aforesaid information, FIR was lodged against the accused in the police station concerned. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer concerned completed the codel formalities. 3. On conclusion of the investigation, into the offence, allegedly committed by the accused, a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was prepared and filed before the learned trial Court. 4. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer concerned completed the codel formalities. 3. On conclusion of the investigation, into the offence, allegedly committed by the accused, a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was prepared and filed before the learned trial Court. 4. The accused was charged by the learned trial Court for his committing offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of the IPC. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses. On conclusion of recording of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused/convict under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded by the learned trial Court in which the accused claimed innocence and pleaded false implication in the case. 5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of conviction against the accused/convict. In an appeal preferred by the accused/revisionist before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Una, the latter affirmed the judgment of the learned trial Court. 6. The accused/convict is aggrieved by the judgments of conviction recorded by both the learned courts below. The learned counsel for the accused/convict has concertedly and vigorously contended qua the findings of conviction recorded by both the learned Courts below standing not based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, rather, theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation of the material on record. Hence, he contends that the findings of conviction be reversed by this Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction and be replaced by findings of acquittal. 7. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Advocate General has with considerable force and vigour, contended that the findings of conviction recorded by both the Courts below are based on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record and do not necessitate interference, rather merit 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 prosecution to sustain the charge against the accused/convict examined 10 witnesses. 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 prosecution to sustain the charge against the accused/convict examined 10 witnesses. The prime evidence in portrayal of the factum of the accused/convict while driving vehicle bearing No. HP-36A-7511 proceeding to overtake a stationary bus thereupon his plying it on the inappropriate side of the road sequeling its striking deceased Sahil, who had walked onto the road, is anvilled upon the deposition of Nazar Mohammad, an eye witness to the occurrence who has deposed as PW-2. A close circumspect reading of his deposition comprised in his examination-in-chief unveils the apparent fact of his testifying in corroboration to the prosecution version of the accused/convict while driving the aforesaid bus, his overtaking a stationary bus whereupon he proceeded to ply it on the inappropriate side of the road sequelling his striking deceased Sahil, who had walked onto the road at the relevant stage. His testimony in his examination-in-chief while unveiling a vivid and graphic enunciation therein qua the factum probandum aforesaid has remained unshattered during the course of his grueling cross-examination to which he stood subjected to by the learned defence counsel. Even though, the learned defence counsel has concerted to bely his presence at the site of occurrence at the time contemporaneous to its taking place by putting an apposite suggestion of his being unavailable thereat hence concerts to dispel the efficacy of his version embodied in his examination-in-chief, yet the apposite suggestion qua the factum aforesaid put to him during his cross-examination by the learned defence counsel came to stand repulsed by him. Consequently, with the concert of the learned defence counsel to bely his presence at the site of occurrence besides to hence overturn his testimony qua the occurrence comprised in his examination-in-chief wherein he deposes qua the genesis of the occurrence in corroboration to the propagation by the prosecution meeting no success does hold leverage to constrain this Court to conclude of PW-2 remaining available at the site of occurrence throughout the stage contemporaneous to its taking place thereat. Necessarily then when he has deposed an independent impartisan ocular account qua it, his testimony is neither overlookable nor discardable rather credence is to be imputed by this Court to his testimony. 10. Necessarily then when he has deposed an independent impartisan ocular account qua it, his testimony is neither overlookable nor discardable rather credence is to be imputed by this Court to his testimony. 10. Though, the learned counsel appearing for the revisionist contends with much vigour and force of his testimony being interested and of non examination of the passengers occupying the bus driven by the accused/convict holding a telling effect upon the veracity of the prosecution version. Yet the aforesaid submission addressed by the learned counsel for the revisionist suffers enfeeblement in the light of PW-8, the Investigating Officer, to whom a suggestion stood put by the learned defence counsel of his omitting to record the statements of the passengers of bus No. HP-36A-7511, suggestion whereof did not elicit a response from him qua their availability at the site of occurrence on his reaching thereat rather his displaying therein of the passengers occupying the bus on his reaching the site of occurrence being unavailable thereat obviously given their unavailability at the site of occurrence on the arrival thereat of the Investigating Officer precluded him to record their statements. An apt sequitur thereto is of there being no deliberate or intentional omission on the part of the Investigating Officer to record the statements of the passengers occupying the bus with an obvious ensuing inference of it hence halting any nursing of a conclusion of his by his omitting to record their statements, his intending to smother the upsurgings from them of truth qua the occurrence. Even otherwise, as aforestated with the ocular account qua the occurrence rendered by PW-2 not suffering erosion qua its credibility despite his testimony standing concerted to be shred apart by the learned defence counsel even qua his interestedness and qua his rendering a biased ocular account qua the occurrence, hence his ocular account qua the occurrence is to be construed to be unbiased and an independent version qua the occurrence, dehors the non association by the Investigating Officer in the investigating conducted by him of the passengers occupying the bus driven by the accused. Even if assumingly, they were present thereat, it is not the numerical strength of the prosecution witnesses which carries weight rather the quality besides the tenacity of the evidence qua the occurrence rendered by even a solitary ocular witness which marshals force and vigour. 11. Even if assumingly, they were present thereat, it is not the numerical strength of the prosecution witnesses which carries weight rather the quality besides the tenacity of the evidence qua the occurrence rendered by even a solitary ocular witness which marshals force and vigour. 11. In aftermath, this Court concludes of the testimony of PW-2 being both reliable and credible and any reliance thereupon by both the learned Courts below to record findings of conviction and consequently theirs concurrently imposing sentences upon the revisionist not warranting any interference from this Court. 12. The postmortem report Ex.PA succors corroboration to the testimony of PW-2 qua the factum deposed by him in his deposition of in sequel to the accused/revisionist striking the deceased, the person of the latter standing pulverized under the tyres of the bus begetting his sustaining on his body multiple injuries as disclosed in Ex.PA. 13. The accused/revisionist has been unable to afford a tenable explanation to bely the personifications in Ex.PA. Even if, the learned counsel for the accused/convict contends of their occurring a discrepancy in the prosecution case qua the manner of the arrival of deceased Sahil at the site of occurrence rendering hence, the prosecution version vulnerable to the skepticism. Any vulnerability to skepticism of the prosecution case purportedly arising from any discrepancy in the prosecution version qua the manner wherefrom deceased Sahil arrived at the site of occurrence, is of no worth for belittling either the testimony of PW-2 or the efficacy of Ex.PA manifesting portrayals in consonance with the independent credible ocular account qua the occurrence rendered by PW-2. When reliance stands imputed to the inspiring and trustworthy testimony of PW-2, it subsumes within its fold the effect, if any, of vulnerability arising from discrepant evidence, if any, as may exist qua the manner of arrival of the deceased at the site of occurrence or qua wherefrom he arrived at the site of occurrence. 14. When reliance stands imputed to the inspiring and trustworthy testimony of PW-2, it subsumes within its fold the effect, if any, of vulnerability arising from discrepant evidence, if any, as may exist qua the manner of arrival of the deceased at the site of occurrence or qua wherefrom he arrived at the site of occurrence. 14. The learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has further contended of the accused/convict/revisionist holding no opportunity to sight the arrival of the deceased at the site of occurrence, inasmuch as his abruptly entering onto the road from the side of an alley, alley whereof remains undepicted in site plan Ex.PW8/A. However, this Court does not find any vigour in the submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist/accused for the reason of the accused/convict taking to while overtaking a stationary bus, ply the bus on the inappropriate side of the road which per se displays his wanton negligence in derogation to the rights of the pedestrians intending to enter the road at the relevant stage for crossing to its either side. Necessarily then the act of the accused taking to ply his bus on the inappropriate side of the road whereupon he inhibited the right of the pedestrians to walk thereon for facilitating him/them to cross either side of the road, construed in coagulation with the fact as voiced in the deposition of PW-2 of deceased Sahil entering the road at the relevant time from the front of the bus, hence the manner aforesaid of his entering the road at the relevant time gave an opportunity to the accused/convict to sight him for hence his for precluding his bus colliding or striking his person, his applying brakes which he omitted to apply as manifested in the testimony of PW-2, does constrain this Court to conclude of the accused/convict vividly magnifying his negligence in proceeding to ply the bus upon the person of the victim/deceased begetting the sequel of his body standing pulverized underneath it. The vivid display in the testimony of PW-2 qua the afore referred factum probandum displays wanton negligence on the part of the accused/convict manifested by his not applying brakes of the bus despite sighting the deceased who entered the road at the relevant time while facing the bus hence facilitated his standing sighted by the accused, whereas hence the accused despite sighting the deceased, his not applying brakes, application whereof may have aborted the incident, sustains the prosecution version of the accused/convict not adhering to the standards of due care and caution. In other words, omission of application of brakes of the bus driven at the relevant time by the accused fosters an inference of his while driving it not adhering to the standards of due care and caution, contrarily, begetting an inference of his being rash and negligent in driving the bus. 15. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that both the learned Court below have appraised the entire evidence on record in a wholesome and harmonious manner apart therefrom the analysis of the material on record by both the learned Courts do not suffer from any perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non-appreciation of evidence on record, rather they have aptly appreciated the material available on record. Consequently, the judgments of conviction and sentence recorded against the accused/appellant by the learned Courts below are affirmed. 16. Consequently, there is no merit in the instant revision petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. The impugned judgments of conviction and sentence rendered by both the learned Courts below are affirmed and maintained. Records be sent back forthwith.