Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 696 (HP)

State of H. P. v. Sanjeev Kumar

2016-05-06

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal stands directed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the impugned judgment rendered on 24.8.2007, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Solan, H.P. in Criminal Case No. 246/2/04/2003 whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent (for short ‘accused’) for the offences charged. 2. Facts in brief are that on 2.4.2003 at about 8.15 a.m. in police station information regarding an accident was received. On receiving the information aforesaid, HC Ranjit Singh, C Durga Dutt and C Krishan Kumar and C Gurdev proceeded to Dharampur Hospital. When HC Ranjit Singh alongwith other police officials reached near the gate of the police station, one Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01-8453 came there in which there was a person in unconscious condition. The MLC was procured of the said person from CHC, Dharampur. The victim was unable to disclose his name and address. Thereafter for further treatment the injured was referred to PGI. Shri Chet Ram, complainant made a statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C before the police that he is a driver in HRTC Bus Rohru Depot. On 2.4.2003 he was driving HRTC Bus bearing No. HP-10-0391 from Chandigarh to Gushali. At about 8.15 a.m. he parked his bus at Sanwara for the purpose of refreshment. The passengers alighted the bus. One passenger standing in the bus after alighting it stood up by the side of the bus. Then from Solan side, a Tata sumo vehicle being driven at high speed struck against the passenger. The passenger fell on the road. The accused took the victim to hospital. After completing all codal formalities and on conclusion of the investigation into the offence, allegedly committed by the accused challan was prepared and filed in the Court. 3. Notice of accusation stood put by the learned trial Court to the accused for his committing offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A of I.P.C, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses. On closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded in which he pleaded innocence and claimed false implication. He did not choose to lead any evidence in defence. 5. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses. On closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded in which he pleaded innocence and claimed false implication. He did not choose to lead any evidence in defence. 5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court returned findings of acquittal in favour of the accused. 6. 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 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. The learned vice counsel appearing for the respondent has with considerable force and vigor contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the 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. HRTC Bus bearing registration No. HP-01-0391 plying from Chandigarh to Gushali stood parked on 2.4.2003 at about 8.15 a.m. at Sanwara, its passengers started disembarking the bus on its standing parked thereat. One Munish an occupant of the bus aforesaid also disembarked it at Sanwara. When the aforesaid after disembarking the bus, was occupying the road, a Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01-8453 struck him sequelling his falling on the road and his begetting injuries, for treatment whereof he was carried to PGI Chandigarh whereat he expired on 6.4.2003. MLC Ex. PW-7/A personifies the fact of the injuries depicted therein being a sequel to his standing struck with a vehicle. In quick succession thereto as displayed in the apposite Post Mortem report prepared by the Doctor concerned at PGI the victim succumbed to the injuries sustained by him on his standing struck with a vehicle. On anvil thereof the learned Deputy Advocate General contends of portrayals aforesaid personificatory of theirs clinching the guilt of the accused. In quick succession thereto as displayed in the apposite Post Mortem report prepared by the Doctor concerned at PGI the victim succumbed to the injuries sustained by him on his standing struck with a vehicle. On anvil thereof the learned Deputy Advocate General contends of portrayals aforesaid personificatory of theirs clinching the guilt of the accused. However the aforesaid submission would carry weight only in the event of ocular witnesses to the occurrence sustaining the prosecution version embodied in the FIR of the victim standing struck with a vehicle driven by the accused who while driving it was grossly negligent. The investigating Officer had associated three eye witnesses in the investigation conducted by him qua the offences committed by the accused. 10. PW-1 Chet Ram the complainant also an eye witness to the occurrence has omitted to lend any sustenance to the prosecution version rather he has turned hostile. On his turning hostile, on the prayer of the learned APP the learned trial Court permitted his standing subjected to cross-examination by the former. However even during the course of his standing subjected to crossexamination by the learned APP he remained unshattered. Consequently the version propounded by him in his examination-in-chief wherein he in gross detraction to his previous statement recorded in writing wherein he has as an ocular witness to the occurrence portrayed the factum of the accused while negligently driving the vehicle aforesaid, his striking the victim has contrarily articulated therein of his being unable to attribute negligence to the accused. Even in his cross-examination by the learned defence counsel he has deposed of his not witnessing the occurrence rather his proceeding to the site of occurrence on his hearing outcries raised thereat. A wholesome reading of his testimony constrains this Court to conclude of his not attributing any negligence to the accused while his driving Tata Sumo. His also while in his cross-examination conducted by the learned defence counsel conceding to the latters apposite suggestion, of his being not the eye witness to the occurrence forecloses an apt inference from this Court of his version qua the incident being hearsay, than of an independent ocular witness, necessarily hence it does not hold any firm evidentiary leverage. 11. The other ocular version qua the ill-fated occurrence stands embodied in the deposition of PW-4 Joginder Kumar Gupta. 11. The other ocular version qua the ill-fated occurrence stands embodied in the deposition of PW-4 Joginder Kumar Gupta. He in his examination-in-chief has deposed of 2-3 buses standing parked at the site of occurrence. He has proceeded to depose of from amongst the row of 3-4 buses parked in the road the victim abruptly arriving at the site of occurrence and his striking with the vehicle driven by the accused. The aforesaid deposition has not to be read in isolation rather it has to be read in conjunction with further factum pronounced by him in his cross-examination of the accused driving his vehicle at normal speed. With PW-4 displaying in his crossexamination of the accused driving the vehicle wherein he was an occupant not at an excessive speed read in coagulation with a echoing by him in his examination-inchief of the victim abruptly arriving at the site of occurrence from amongst a row of 2-3 buses parked thereat, firmly clinches an apt inference of despite the accused adhering to the standards of due care and caution the victim rather suo moto accidentally striking the vehicle driven by the accused predominantly given his abrupt arrival at the site of occurrence from amongst a row of 2-3 buses parked thereat especially when his abrupt appearance before the vehicle driven by the accused precluded the latter to sight him whereupon alone he to obviate the mishap stood enjoined to apply brakes rather with the victim while proceeding onto the road whereat the vehicle driven by the accused stood plied while holding the capacity to sight the vehicle stood rather enjoined to adhere to the standards of due care and caution by his omitting to proceed onto the road given the presence thereat of the vehicle driven by the accused, whereas his proceeding onto the road whereat the vehicle driven by the accused stood plied amplifies the factum of his giving a go bye to the standards of due care and caution rendering the factum of his accidentally striking the vehicle driven by the accused being a sequel to rather his negligence than any negligence on the part of the accused. The aforesaid inference negates any element of negligence on the part of the accused while driving the vehicle besides negates any inference of his deliberately or intentionally striking the victim. 12. The aforesaid inference negates any element of negligence on the part of the accused while driving the vehicle besides negates any inference of his deliberately or intentionally striking the victim. 12. Last eye witness relied upon by the prosecution is PW-5 Parmanand, who in his examination-inchief has corroborated the prosecution version, nonetheless his version qua the prosecution story comprised in his examination-in-chief looses its vigor in the face of his in his cross-examination deposing of his not witnessing the occurrence at the stage when it occurred at the site of occurrence rather his proceeding thereto on his hearing outcries standing raised thereat. In sequel, he renders a hearsay account qua the occurrence which hearsay account does not hold any evidentiary value. 13. A wholesome analysis of the evidence on record portrays that the appreciation of evidence as done by the learned trial Court does not suffer from any perversity and absurdity nor it can be said that the learned trial Court in recording findings of acquittal has committed any legal misdemeanor, in as much, as, it having mis-appreciated the evidence on record or omitted to appreciate relevant and admissible evidence. In aftermath this Court does not deem it fit and appropriate that the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court merit interference. 14. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed and the judgment of the learned trial Court is maintained and affirmed. Record of the learned trial Court be sent back forthwith.