Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 841 (HP)

State of H. P. v. Sharanjit

2016-05-18

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal is directed by the State of H.P. against the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 2, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, rendered on 18.06.2007 in Cr. Case No. 10-II-99 whereby, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent herein of the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Panel Code. 2. The facts relevant to decide the instant case are that on 25.4.1999 at around 12.15 p.m. at Dhundla, accused was found driving a Meta-door vehicle bearing No. DL-08-2281 on a public road in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of other and while driving as such accused struck his vehicle against a cyclist i.e. complainant Husain Ali and thereby caused him and his brother Anayat Ali simple and grievous injuries. On a statement made by complainant Husain Ali under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. to the police, FIR was registered against the accused in the police station concerned. Thereafter, the police completed the investigation formalities. 3. On conclusion of the investigation, into the offence, allegedly committed by the accused, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was prepared and filed in the 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 9 witnesses. On conclusion of recording of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded by the 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 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 being sequelled by gross mis-appreciation of the 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. 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 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 accused/respondent while driving Metadoor bearing No. DL-08-2281 begot a collision with an bicycle whereon the complainant Husain Ali and his brother Anayat Ali were atop. In sequel to the collision which occurred inter se the Metadoor and bicycle whereon at the relvant time both the complainant and his brother were atop, both the complainant and his brother sustained simple and grievous injuries. PW-9 has therein proven the factum of the brother of the complainant alone sustaining simple as well as grievous injuries. He has communicated therein of injuries noticed by him to be occurring on the person of the brother of the complainant standing begotten by a fall from bicycle. 10. The prosecution to sustain its case against the accused depended apart from the testimony of PW-9 upon apposite communications occurring in the testimonies of eight witnesses. Eye witnesses to the occurrence are PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3. PW1 and PW-2 in their respective testimonies unequivocally voices the factum of the site whereat the collision occurred inter se the meta-door driven by the accused and the bicycle whereon both the complainant and his brother were atop being a road having a steep gradient. Also they have in their respective testimonies echoed the prime factum of pot holes occurring on the road. They have also deposed of at the apposite site the road holding an extremely narrow width. Given the manifestations aforesaid occurring in the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2, the attribution to the accused by the prosecution of his driving vehicle meta-door bearing No.DL-08-2281 at a high speed hence negligently which sequelled the vehicle driven by him to collide with the bicycle whereon both the complainant and his brother were atop gets withered. Given the manifestations aforesaid occurring in the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2, the attribution to the accused by the prosecution of his driving vehicle meta-door bearing No.DL-08-2281 at a high speed hence negligently which sequelled the vehicle driven by him to collide with the bicycle whereon both the complainant and his brother were atop gets withered. Since the purported excessive speed at which the vehicle driven by the accused stands enunciated by PW-2 to beget its collision with the bicycle whereon the complainant and his brother were atop, hence the voicing by PW-1 and PW-2 of the gradient of the road whereat both vehicles collided being steep besides pot holes occurring thereat also its thereat holding a narrow width are preeminent factors which also dispel the attribution to the accused by the prosecution of his at the relevant time driving his vehicle at an excessive pace sequelling its colliding with the bicycle atop whereon were the complainant and his brother. An amplification to the inference of the afore-referred factors dispelling the propagation of the prosecution of the accused driving the Meta-door at an excessive pace and his being negligent stand succored by PW-1 and PW-2, who in their respective testimonies communicate therein of the road being zig-zag which curvaceous nature of the road at the site of occurrence can secure a conclusion from this Court of its acting as a deterrent for the accused to drive his vehicle at an excessive pace. The aforesaid inference as upsurge on a reading of the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 of hence the accused not at the relevant time driving his vehicle at an excessive pace whereupon no deduction can stand derived of his being negligent in driving it for its begetting its collision with the bicycle whereon both the complainant and his brother were atop. Since the collision occurred inter se both, the communication made by PW-2 in his testimony wherein he has acquiesced to the suggestion put to him by the learned defence counsel while holding him to crossexamination of the ill fated collision standing sprouted by the complainant who was atop the bicycle as its rider losing control owing to a steep gradient occurring at the site of occurrence besides his getting perplexed on sighting the Meta-door coming from the opposite direction obviously constrains this Court to conclude of when at the relevant time the vehicle driven by the accused was going upward whereas the bicycle whereon the complainant and his brother were atop was moving downward, when conjunctively construed with the factum of the road holding pot holes also it being curvaceous hence forestalling the accused to drive it at an excessive pace of hence with the complainant being atop, his bicycle while moving downwards rather his losing control of his bicycle also his getting perplexed on sighting the vehicle driven by the accused sequelling his bicycle rather colliding with the meta-door driven at the relevant time by the accused. The aforesaid inference negates any inculpatory role of the accused qua his being purportedly negligent in driving his vehicle or driving it at a rash pace, hence his sequelling a collision of the vehicle driven by him with the bicycle whereon the complainant and his brother were atop. 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 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. 12. Consequently, I find no merit in the instant appeal which is accordingly dismissed and the judgment of acquittal recorded in favour of the accused/respondent herein by the learned trial Court is affirmed. Records be sent back forthwith.