Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 404 (HP)

State of H. P. v. Dev Dutt

2017-04-25

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2017
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The instant appeal stands directed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the judgment rendered on 09.07.2007 by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. II, Hamirpur, H.P. in Police Challan No. 49-II-2005, whereby, he acquitted the accused for his allegedly committing offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 201 of the IPC. 2. The facts relevant to decide the instant case are that on 27.10.2005, at about 6.30/7.00 p.m. at place near Dasmal Chowk, accused was driving vehicle No. HP-67-0984 on a public way in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger to human life and personal safety of others on the road. While driving the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner, the accused struck it with one Prithi Chand, who was standing by the side of the road near his tractor and thus the accused caused simple injuries on his person. The accused aver the incident alleged to have fled away in his vehicle with intend to cause disappearance of evidence. Consequently, FIR was registered in the police station concerned. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer concerned completed the codel formalities. 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, 337 and 201 of the IPC. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 11 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. 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 Additional 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 se-quelled by gross mis-appreciation of the material on record. The learned Additional 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 se-quelled 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 tenacity” of the reasons as assigned by the learned trial Court, for recording an order of acquittal upon the accused/respondent herein, tenacity whereof, is comprised in the factum of complainant PW-1 Prithi Singh and PW-2, Jaswant respectively resiling from their previous statements recorded in writing also is comprised, in theirs respectively feigning ignorance with respect to the identity of the accused besides with respect to the identity of the offending vehicles “gets scuttled” by the fact of the accused admitting that he was at the relevant time, driving the offending vehicle bearing No. HP-67-0984. 10. Be that as it may, the prosecution was bound to prove the trite fact, of the accused/respondent driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, in sequel whereof, the complainant, as revealed by the apposite MLC, borne on Ex. PX-1, received injuries on his person. Even though, complainant Prithi Singh (PW-1) and PW-2 Jaswant as well as PW-8 Amar Nath, all ocular witnesses to the occurrence, respectively resiled from their previous statements recorded in writing. Nonetheless, with theirs, respectively in their cross-examinations to which they stood subjected to by the learned APP, on the learned trial Court, on theirs turning hostile, permitting him to hold them to cross- examination, theirs making therein communications in support of the prosecution case. Nonetheless, with theirs, respectively in their cross-examinations to which they stood subjected to by the learned APP, on the learned trial Court, on theirs turning hostile, permitting him to hold them to cross- examination, theirs making therein communications in support of the prosecution case. Consequently, the fact of the complainant besides of all the ocular witnesses, to the occurrence not in their respective examinations-in-chief supporting the prosecution case, would not constrain any inference from this Court of the prosecution failing to efficaciously prove the charge to which the accused/respondent, was subjected to. The reason for making the aforesaid conclusion, arises from the depictions, occurring in the apposite site plan, borne on Ex.PW11/C, wherein, the place/site of occurrence, whereat the iron angle, loaded, in the offending vehicle driven by the accused, struck the person of the complainant, is reflected to be between points A & B. A close perusal of the aforesaid disclosure, made in the site plan, unfolds that the victim was apparently occupying a portion of the road, portion whereof, was meant for the plying of the vehicle driven by the accused/respondent. The effect of the victim positioning himself at a portion of the road, meant for plying thereon of vehicles, is hence, per se its not enhancing any conclusion that the accused/respondent in driving the offending vehicle, at the aforesaid place reflected in Ex.PW11/C, his omitting to adhere to the standards of due care and caution, conspicuously, when it comprises the appropriate place for his vehicle being plied thereon. 11. For the reasons which have been 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 the material on record by the learned trial Court does not suffer from any gross 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. The judgment impugned before this Court is maintained and affirmed. Records be sent back forthwith.