Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1312 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Ravinder Singh

2017-11-29

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2017
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal stands directed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the judgment of acquittal pronounced on 29.6.2006, by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmour, District Nahan, H.P. upon criminal case No.28/2 of 2005/04, whereby findings, of acquittal were returned upon the respondent, for his allegedly committing offence punishable under Sections 279, 336, 337, 338 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. The facts relevant to decide the instant case are that on 12.11.2004, at about 6:30 p.m. at Sain-ki-Sair, Tehsil and Police Station, Sadar Nahan, the accused was driving truck bearing No. HR-58A-6666 in a manner so rash or negligent so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and as a result of such rash or negligent driving of the accused, Lokesh Kumar pillion rider of motor-cycle bearing No. HP18A-0988 sustained multiple simple and grievous injuries on his person. The accused kept the window of left side of his vehicle open. The truck was also being driven by the accused without driving license. The matter was reported to the police, on the basis of which FIR was registered at Police Station, Nahan. The Investigating Officer visited the spot and prepared the site plan Ext. PW8/A. The injured person was medically examined in Zonal Hospital, Nahan. The site plan was prepared by the Investigating Officer Ext. PW8/A and taken into possession the wrist watch of injured vide recovery memo Ext. PW1/B and both the vehicles involved in the accident were also taken into possession by the Investigating Officer vide memo Ext. PW6/A and PW1/C. The photographs were also taken by the police during the investigation of this case, which are Ext. P1 to P8, the negatives of which are Ext. P9 to P16. The Investigating Officer also recorded the statement of the complainant Yashwant Singh under Section 154 Cr. P.C. which was sent to P.S. Sadar Nahan for registration of case and on the basis of which FIR Ext. PW8/C was registered against the accused. After the completion of investigation, I.O came to conclusion that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused. 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 before the learned trial Court. After the completion of investigation, I.O came to conclusion that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused. 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 before the learned trial Court. 4. The accused stood charged by the learned trial Court, for his committing offences punishable under Sections 279, 336, 337, 338 of the IPC and under Section 181 of the M.V. Act. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined eight witnesses. On conclusion of recording of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded by the learned trial Court, wherein 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 upon the accused/respondent herein for his committing offences punishable under Sections 279, 336, 337 and 338 of the IPC and under Section 181 of the M.V. Act. 6. The State of H.P. stands aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal recorded upon the accused/respondent. The learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State has concertedly and vigorously contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court standing not based on a proper appreciation “by it” of the evidence on record, rather, theirs standing sequelled by gross-misappreciation “by it” of the material on record. Hence, he contends qua the findings of acquittal warranting reversal by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and theirs standing replaced by findings of conviction. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the accused/respondent herein has with considerable force and vigour, contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmour at Nahan, standing based on a mature and balanced appreciation by him of the evidence on record and theirs not necessitating any 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. Accused/respondent, was, at the relevant site of occurrence driving truck bearing No. HR-58A-6666. 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. Accused/respondent, was, at the relevant site of occurrence driving truck bearing No. HR-58A-6666. Upon arrival of Motor Cycle bearing No. HP-18A-0988, at the site of occurrence, thereat its driver, though, was able to save himself, from his being struck by the open window of the aforesaid truck, yet one Mukesh Kumar, occupying the pillion of the Motor Cycle, was unable to save himself, rather the open window of the aforesaid truck, struck, against the right side of his forehead near eye, whereon he sustained multiple injuries, besides was purportedly rendered unconscious. Apparently, the manner of ascriptions of negligence, vis-à-vis the accused/respondent, is comprised in his, not ensuring, his latching the window of the truck, rather his leaving it open, whereupon it struck the pillion rider, of motor cycle bearing No. HP-18A-0988. 10. The prosecution for proving the charge framed against the accused, had, relied upon testification’s rendered by purported ocular witnesses thereto. The testifications rendered by the ocular witnesses, to the occurrence, carry therein articulations of (i) the offending vehicle plying on the ascent of the gradient, (ii) whereas the vehicle whereon, the pillion rider was astride, rather moving downwards. The evidence existing, on record also makes disclosures, of the respondent/accused, while driving the offending vehicle, his not driving it at an excessive/brazen pace. Even if assumingly he was driving the offending vehicle at an excessive/brazen pace, the aforesaid manner of his driving the offending vehicle would not perse attract negligence vis-à-vis him (iii) unless cogent evident existing on record makes a graphic disclosure of his driving the offending vehicle, upon the inappropriate side of the road. (iv) Furthermore, of evidence on record, making vivid bespeaking’s, of, the accused/respondent, driving the offending vehicle, upon, the appropriate side of the road, (v) thereupon even if he purportedly omitted to latch the windows of the truck, also even if the unlatched window of the truck purportedly struck the pillion rider of motor cycle bearing No. HP-18A-0988 near his right eye, (vi) hence merely thereupon it being inappropriate to fasten penally inculpable negligence vis-à-vis the accused/respondent. In resting the aforesaid factum (vii) AND for making apt discernments, occurrence, of, communications in the last part of the cross-examination of PW-2, of, the offending vehicle being driven on the appropriate side of the road, rather hence beget an inference of ascriptions’ of purported incriminatory negligence’s vis-à-vis accused/respondent, not, warranting its ascription vis-à-vis him. (viii) Also, if he had purportedly not latched, the windows of the truck, besides even if assumingly, it struck the pillion rider of the motor cycle, thereupon, it is rather to be concluded, of, the driver of the motor cycle bearing No. HP-18A-0988 swerving the latter vehicle onto the inappropriate side, of the road, (ix) also rather his omissions in keeping the motor cycle on the appropriate side of the road, hence precluding, the person borne on its pillion from being purportedly struck by the unlatched window, of, the offending vehicle. 11. Be that as it may, in proving the factum of the pillion rider, of motor cycle bearing No.HP-18A-0988, in sequel to his right eye, being struck by the unlatched window of the offending vehicle, being hence rendered unconscious also his suffering injuries, does not obtain any succor, from the apposite MLC borne in Ext.PA, whereupon the entire genesis of the prosecution case is ingrained with a pervasive vice of falsity. 12. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned appellate Court 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 appellate Court, does not, suffer from perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non-appreciation of evidence on record. 13. Consequently, there is no merit in the instant appeal which is accordingly dismissed. The Judgment impugned before this Court is maintained and affirmed. Records be sent back forthwith.