Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 269 (HP)

State of H. P. v. Bhim Singh

2017-03-30

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2017
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The instant appeal stands directed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the judgment rendered on 16.10.2008 by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chachiot at Gohar, District Mandi, H.P. in Police Challan No. 76-I/2001 (2000), where by, he acquitted the accused for his allegedly committing offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC. 2. The facts relevant to decide the instant case are that complainant Nargis Thakur, Hindi Teacher at Senior Secondary School Thunag recorded her statement before the Police to the effect that today on 28.9.1999 at about 3.35 P.M., she was travelling in a HRTC bus which was going from Janjehli to Sunder nagar and was sitting on seat No.3. There were about 35 passengers in the bus. AT about 4.00 p.m., when the bus passed through Kandhi mod then about 70 ft. ahead, the driver of the bus bearing No. HP-31-1509 due to his rashness and negligence took the bus to the wrong side and the bus tumbled down 50 ft. below the road. She came out from the window of the bus. She stated that she along with other passengers of the bus received injuries in the alleged accident. The accident stated to have taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. On the aforesaid statement of the complainant, FIR was registered in the police station concerned. There after, the Investigating Officer concerned completed the codel formalities. 3. On conclusion of the investigation, 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, 337 and 338 of the IPC. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 23 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 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. 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. stands aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal recorded in favour of the accused/respondent by the learned trial Court. The learned Deputy Advocate General 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 of the evidence on record, rather, theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation 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 trial Court 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. The penal act of the accused/respondent stands comprised in his purportedly negligently driving his vehicle/bus bearing No. HP-31-1509, constituted by his driving it at an excessive and brazen pace, where upon, it rolled down at Kandi Mod into a depth of 50 feet below the road. The prosecution witnesses unanimously deposed qua in sequel to the negligent manner of driving of the bus by the accused/respondent, thereupon, it rolling into a depth of 50 feet below the road, also they in tandem depose qua the passengers occupying the bus driven by the accused/respondent sustaining injuries on their persons, factum whereof stands borne on the apposite MLCs embodied in Ex. PW19/A to Ex.PW19/K and Ex.PA to Ex.PV. All the prosecution witnesses are the occupants of the bus driven by the accused/respondent, each in their respective testifications, testify with unanimity bereft of any vice of any intra se contradictions qua the accused/respondent driving the aforesaid bus, at an excessive speed, whereupon, hence, swerved it astray from the road, where after it tumbled into a depth of 50 feet from the edge of the road whereon it stood plied. 10. 10. Be that as it may, their consistently deposed version qua the charge, whereto the accused stood tried, would constrain an inference of the accused/respondent while driving the aforesaid HRTC bus bearing No. HP-31-1509, his driving it negligently at a brazen pace, sequel whereto, being qua its rolling down into a depth of 50 feet from the edge of the road where on it stood plied. However, before imputing tenacious credence to the testifications of the ocular witnesses qua the relevant incident, an allusion to the strength of the espousal made by the accused in his defence qua the tumbling of the bus from the edge of the road whereon it stood plied, into a depth of 50 feet there from, emanating from eruption of sudden mechanical defect therein, on anvil whereof, he obviously seeks to exculpate his incriminatory role embodied in the relevant charge, besides as a necessary corollary thereto also warrants an advertence to the report of the mechanical expert borne on Ex.PW21/A holding disclosures therein qua sequels of the the Mechanical Expert carrying its inspection, on the day subsequent to the ill-fated mishap involving the vehicle driven by the accused/respondent. The mechanical report Ex.PW21/A, which stands proven by PW-21, pronounces therein qua on his holding the inspection of the relevant vehicle, his detecting its steering system suffering a break down also he vioces therein qua the tyre rod also the leaf spring also standing noticed by him stand dismantled, whereupon, he stood incapacitated to hold inspection of the steering wheel of the relevant vehicle. Furthermore, he has also voiced in Ex.PW21/A qua his inability to ascertain the efficacy of the braking system of the vehicle, inability whereof arose from the brake pipe suffering a breakdown. However, in his report, he has not with firmness voiced the aforesaid defects noticed by him to be occurring in the relevant vehicle on his holding its inspection either erupting prior to the occurrence or subsequent to the occurrence of the accident. However, in his report, he has not with firmness voiced the aforesaid defects noticed by him to be occurring in the relevant vehicle on his holding its inspection either erupting prior to the occurrence or subsequent to the occurrence of the accident. However, when PW-9, PW-11 and PW-14, all ocular witnesses to the occurrence in their respective testifications occurring in their relevant cross-examinations make vivid articulations qua at the time contemporaneous to the bus driven by the accused swerving away from its appropriate path, whereupon, it tumbled upto a depth of 50 feet from the edge of the road, where on, it stood plied, theirs hearing a sound of some breakage occurring in the relevant vehicle. The aforesaid testimonies of PWs aforesaid stood not concerted to be shred of their efficacy by the learned APP concerned comprised in his seeking the permission of the learned trial Magistrate to either cross-examine them or to re-examine them qua the fact aforesaid, whereupon, the effect of the aforesaid pronouncements made by the aforesaid PWs is qua theirs being credible besides their apposite effect stands when construed in coalescence with PW-21 omitting to with firmness voice in Ex.PW21/A qua the relevant defects noticed by him to be occurring in the vehicle concerned occurring thereon either prior to the accident or subsequent thereto, whereupon, hence with lack of conclusivity of imputation by him qua the relevant defects noticed by him in the relevant vehicle hence occurring there with inn prior to or subsequent to the accident, is qua hence an inference standing engendered qua the espousal of the accused qua his inability to keep the vehicle on the appropriate side of the road standing sequelled by the failure or of break down of its steering wheel besides break down of its braking system, whereupon, obviously the speed at which it stood driven being hence volitionally uncontrollable did not hence render him penally inculpable. 11. For the reasons which have been recorded here in above, this Court holds that the learned trial Court has appraised the entire evidence on record in a Whole some and harmonious manner apart there from the analysis of the material on record by the learned trial Court does not suffer from perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non appreciation of evidence on record. 12. Consequently, there is no merit in the instant appeal which is accordingly dismissed. 12. 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 forth with.