Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 210 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Manohar Lal

2017-03-20

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2017
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal stands directed against the impugned judgement of acquittal recorded by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. whereby he pronounced an order of acquittal upon the accused qua the offences allegedly committed by him. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 23.10.2001 at about 5.45 p.m on receipt of a telephonic message qua the accident, SI Brij Mohan Sharma, alongwith Constable Neter Singh had gone to ESI Hospital, Parwanoo. ASI Bheem Singh and constable Ram Lal met them in the bazaar at Parwanoo, who had at that time were on patrol duty. They both were also taken to ESI Hospital by S.I. Brij Mohan Sharma. There they came to know that Suneel Kumar had met with an accident near Truck Union, with truck No. HP-07-1112 due to which he had sustained injuries on his body below the abdomen. Suneel Kumar from ESI Hospital Parwanoo had been referred for further treatment to the Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector-32, Chandigarh. On preliminary enquiry conducted by SI Brij Mohan Sharma, alongwith other police officials, he came to know that a truck after loading material from Cosmo Factory was coming towards the Truck Union being driven by the accused Manohar Lal. When the truck reached near the Truck Union gate, Suneel Kumar at that time was going towards the bus stand. Accused Manohar Lal by driving the truck at high speed and in a negligent manner while trying to take the truck inside the gate, struck it against Suneel Kumar, who sustained injuries below the abdomen. The accident is said to have taken place due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the accused. The accused had fled alongwith the truck from the spot. On the written report made by SI Brij Mohan Sharma, an F.I.R. under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code was recorded in Police Station, Parwanoo and after completing all codal formalities and on conclusion of the investigation into the offences, allegedly committed by the accused, challan was prepared and filed in the Court. 3. A notice of accusation stood put to the accused by the learned trial Court for his committing offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304-A and 201 of the IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. 3. A notice of accusation stood put to the accused by the learned trial Court for his committing offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304-A and 201 of the IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 5 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 defence evidence. 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 warranting reversal by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and theirs standing replaced by findings of conviction. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent 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. As unraveled by site plan embodied in Ext.PW-5/A, the site whereat the truck driven by the accused/respondent, struck deceased Sunil Kumar, stands depicted therein to be point ‘C’ in sequel whereto, the body of the latter stood pulverized thereunder, whereupon as divulged by post mortem report held in Ext.PW-5/B, the deceased suffered on his person the injuries as stand delineated therein, whereupon he suffered his demise. The learned Deputy Advocate General has contended with much vigour and force qua with PW-1, an ocular witness to the occurrence, emphatically rendering a truthful account qua the occurrence where within he ascribes penally inculpable negligence vis-a-vis the respondent, thereupon his testimony was sufficient for constraining the learned trial Court, to record findings of conviction upon the accused also he submits qua the mere factum of dis-concurrence if any, in the ocular account qua the occurrence rendered by PW-1 vis-a-vis. the injuries borne on post mortem report comprised in Ext.PW-5/B would not be amenable to any inference, conspicuously, even when the injuries reflected in post mortem report borne on Ext.PW-5/B do not hold synonymity with the testification of PW-1, qua hence the body of deceased Sunil Kumar standing not pulverized under the tyres of the offending vehicle driven by accused/respondent qua nor perse thereupon this Court standing constrained to revere the findings returned upon the accused/respondent. 10. The latter submission addressed before this Court by the learned Deputy Advocate General, though would hold tremendous vigour unless evidence stood adduced by the defence qua the fragility or strength of the ribcage of the victim/deceased whereover the offending truck driven by the accused drove upon also with vivid pronouncements occurring therein qua the fragility or strength of the ribcage of the victim/deceased whereover the offending truck driven by the accused, drove upon, thereupon its suffering or not hence suffering a complete fracture thereof, whereas absence of the aforesaid apposite evidence, does constrain this Court to conclude qua the visible non-alignment inter se the version qua the aforesaid factum testified by PW-1 vis-a-vis the minimal injuries in sequel thereto standing reflected in the post mortem report borne on Ext.PW-5/B, does contrarily constrain this Court to conclude qua it being construable to be unworthy of any relevance, for hence disimputing credence vis-a-vis the prosecution case. 11. 11. PW-3 the other eye witness to the occurrence has in his cross-examination disclosed qua his not glimpsing the precise moment whereat the body of deceased Sunil Kumar stood driven upon/over by the offending truck, truck whereof stood thereat driven by the accused/respondent, thereupon his testification borne in his examination in chief wherein he attributes penal negligence qua the occurrence upon the accused, does obviously loose its vigour, its holding an account thereof, at a stage whereat he had not eye witnessed the trite factum of the manner of the accused/respondent purportedly driving over/upon the body of deceased Sunil Kumar. 12. Dehors the above, the aforesaid ocular witnesses to the occurrence omitted, to, in their respective examinations in chief make any disclosure therein qua the factum probandum qua the accused/respondent despite his holding an opportunity to sight the arrival of the deceased before the truck driven by him, his yet proceeding to manoeuvre, it for its standing driven over the body of the deceased. The omission of the aforesaid disclosures in the examinations in chief of the aforesaid purported eye witnesses to the occurrence, fillips a derivative qua the relevant tenet, for establishing the charge against the accused, comprised in the prosecution proving qua the accused/respondent despite sighting the arrival of the accused before the truck driven by him, his hence abandoning adherence to the standards of due care and caution, deviation wherefrom standing constituted in his penal act of driving the offending truck upon the body of the deceased. Consequently, reticence qua the aforesaid facets by both the ocular witnesses to the occurrence, coaxes an inference qua evidence qua the accused not adhering to the standards of due care and caution, being wholly amiss, whereupon this Court cannot proceed to sustain the charge. 13. Be that as it may, PW-4 has made a disclosure in his statement qua one Brij Mohan Sharma, on receiving a Rukka from one Ram Lal, in Rukka whereof details occur qua the manner of the occurrence, his thereupon proceeding to register an F.I.R. qua the occurrence. The aforesaid Rukka in sequel whereof the apposite F.I.R stood registered against the accused hence constituted the best evidence qua the manner of besides the genesis of the relevant occurrence. However, it came to be withheld besides obviously suppressed also both Ram Lal and Brij Mohan Sharma remained un-examined by the prosecution. The aforesaid Rukka in sequel whereof the apposite F.I.R stood registered against the accused hence constituted the best evidence qua the manner of besides the genesis of the relevant occurrence. However, it came to be withheld besides obviously suppressed also both Ram Lal and Brij Mohan Sharma remained un-examined by the prosecution. The effect of withholding of ‘Rukka’ in sequel whereof one Brij Mohan Sharma registered the apposite F.I.R., whereas the endeavour of the prosecution to succor the charge, on anvil of purported eye witness thereto would achieve success, only on their names finding occurrence therewithin, contrarily with the ‘Rukka’ standing withheld nor Brij Mohan Sharma and Ram Lal standing examined constrains an inference qua both the purported ocular witnesses to the occurrence standing unnamed by Ram Lal in the ‘Rukka’, whereupon it is befitting to conclude qua the Investigating Officer contriving the factum of their presence at the relevant site of occurrence thereat thereupon their testimonies lose their credibility. The further effect of both Ram Lal, who purportedly prepared Rukka and of Brij Mohan Sharma who thereupon prepared the apposite F.I.R hence remaining unexamined is qua hence an inference standing aroused qua the prosecution hence smothering the true genesis of the occurrence which otherwise may stand unfolded by Ram Lal and Brij Mohan Sharma whereupon the emergence of a smothered besides invented version qua the occurrence warrants dis-imputation of credence thereto. 14. Be that as it may, the inevitable sequel of the body of deceased standing crushed under the tyres of the offending vehicle, vehicle whereof stood driven thereon by the accused, warranted the tyres of the offending truck to acquire blood stains, yet photographs unravelling the aforesaid fact remained unadduced whereupon also the aforesaid submissions apart from the hereinbefore ascribed reasons warrant, theirs standing discountenanced. 15. For the reasons which stand recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned trial Court has appraised the entire evidence on record in a wholesome and harmonious manner apart therefrom the analysis of 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 whereupon its judgement warrants no interference. 16. In view of the above, I find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. In sequel, the impugned judgement is affirmed and maintained. 16. In view of the above, I find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. In sequel, the impugned judgement is affirmed and maintained. Record of the learned trial Court be sent back forthwith.