Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 888 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Munni Lal

2017-08-01

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. 1. The present criminal appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been maintained by the State of Himachal Pradesh, against the judgment of acquittal, dated 03.10.2007, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 3, Shimla, H.P. in Criminal Case No. 61/2 of 2006, under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The key facts, giving rise to the present appeal as per the prosecution story are that on 26.05.2006, at about 12.30 p.m. Gurnaib Singh/complainant (hereinafter to be called as “the complainant”) was on his way from Shimla to Kaithlighat in his vehicle, bearing No. HR-37-B-5689 and when he reached near Sonu Bangla, one pick up, bearing No. HP-63-1053, came from Shoghi side and collided with his vehicle. It has been alleged that the accused was driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, due to which, the accident has occurred. On the basis of statement of the complainant, FIR was registered against the accused. During the course of investigation spot map was prepared and both the vehicles in question were taken into possession, vide separate seizure memo and were got mechanically examined. Statements of the other witnesses were also recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. photographs of the spot were got clicked and after completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court. 3. Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as 7 witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the prosecution case and claimed innocence. Accused did not lead any defence evidence. The learned trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 03.10.2007, acquitted the accused for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 279 of the IPC, hence the present appeal. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 5. Learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the spot map, coupled with the statements of the prosecution witnesses, makes it clear that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt and after re-appreciating the evidence, the accused is required to be convicted. 5. Learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the spot map, coupled with the statements of the prosecution witnesses, makes it clear that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt and after re-appreciating the evidence, the accused is required to be convicted. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused, as it was the complainant, who was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, as he was on VIP duty and in hurry to reach Kaithlighat, before the Railway Minister reaches there. He has further argued that taking into consideration the time of the accident and the distance between the place of accident and Kaithlighat, it is clear that it was the complainant, who was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. In rebuttal, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the case of the accused is of simple denial and he has not given any explanation while he was being examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 6. To appreciate the arguments of learned Additional Advocate General and learned defence counsel, this Court has gone through the record in detail and minutely scrutinized the statements of the witnesses. 7. PW-1, Narinder Kumar, has deposed that the vehicles bearing No. HR-37-B-5689 and HP-63-1053, were taken into possession alongwith their documents, vide seizure memos, Ext. PW-1/A and Ext. PW-1/B. In his cross-examination, he has admitted his signature on Ext. PW-1/B. He has also admitted that documents of the vehicle No. HP-63-1053 has been taken into possession in his presence. 8. PW-2, Head Constable, Manoj Kumar, has deposed that he has recorded the statement of the complainant, Ext. PW-2/A, on the basis of which, FIR, Ext. PW-2/B was registered. He has further deposed that he prepared the spot map, Ext. PW-2/D and took into possession both the vehicles, vide seizure memos, Ext. PW- 1/A and PW-1/B, in presence of the witnesses. He has admitted that vehicle, bearing No. HR-37-B-5689 has been handed over to the complainant on sapurdari. He has further deposed that photographs of the spot has been taken, which are mark A-1 to A-7, both the vehicles were mechanically examined and mechanical report, mark A-8 was obtained. PW- 1/A and PW-1/B, in presence of the witnesses. He has admitted that vehicle, bearing No. HR-37-B-5689 has been handed over to the complainant on sapurdari. He has further deposed that photographs of the spot has been taken, which are mark A-1 to A-7, both the vehicles were mechanically examined and mechanical report, mark A-8 was obtained. He has also recorded the statements of the witnesses, under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that he reached on the spot at about 1:30 p.m. and at that time accused Muni Lal, Complainant Gurnaib Singh, Sandeep and Narinder were present there. He has admitted that on the spot there is a curve. 9. PW-3, complainant, in his examination-in-chief, has deposed that on 26.05.2006, at about 12:30 p.m. when he reached at Sonu Bangla, in his vehicle bearing No. HR- 37-B-5689, one pick up, which was on its way from Shoghi to Shimla, collided with his vehicle. He has further deposed that his vehicle, alongwith documents was taken into possession, vide seizure memo, Ext. PW-1/A and thereafter handed over to him on sapurdari, copy of the driving licence is Ext. PW-3/A, R.C. is Ext. PW-3/B and Insurance is Ext. PW-3/C. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that at the spot, there is double way traffic road. He has also admitted that a truck was in front of the vehicle of the accused and when a truck gave pass to the vehicle of the accused then it collided. He has also admitted that his vehicle was parked on the edge of the road. He has denied that the accused was not driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. 10. PW-4, Mohammed Shah, has deposed that on 27.05.2006, he was sitting inside the vehicle of the accused, when they reached at Sonu Bangla and tried to pass the truck, which was parked on the road, one qualis collided with their vehicle. He has admitted that both the drivers were rash and negligent. In cross-examination, he has admitted that speed of the vehicle was normal. 11. PW-5, Sandeep Singh, has deposed that on 27.05.2006, he was travelling with the complainant, in his vehicle and at about 12:30 p.m. when they reached at Sonu Bangla, a pick up, bearing No. HP-63-1053 collided with their vehicle. He has further deposed that the accused was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. 11. PW-5, Sandeep Singh, has deposed that on 27.05.2006, he was travelling with the complainant, in his vehicle and at about 12:30 p.m. when they reached at Sonu Bangla, a pick up, bearing No. HP-63-1053 collided with their vehicle. He has further deposed that the accused was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that on the spot there is a curve. He has also admitted that a truck was also on its way from Shoghi to Shimla in front of the vehicle of the accused. He has denied that the complainant was driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. 12. PW-6, Vikas Sharma, has taken the spot photographs, Ext. PW-6/A to Ext. PW-6/G. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he has not given the negatives to the Police. 13. PW-7, Head Constable, Sanjeev Kumar, has deposed that both the vehicles were mechanically examined by him, on the basis of which, he has prepared the report, Ext. PW-7/A and Ext. PW-7/B. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that there was no mechanical defect in both the vehicles. 14. In the present case, prosecution was required to prove that the accused was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger human life. However, mere fact that the accused was driving the vehicle in fast speed does not amount to rash and negligent driving. PW-3, Gurnaib Singh, has specifically deposed that the vehicle came from the other side and hit his vehicle, however the accident has taken place in middle of the road, i.e. 3 feet towards the right side of the road from middle of the road by the offending vehicle and nearly in middle of the road by vehicle of the complainant. After the accident, vehicle of the complainant has gone ahead to a distance of 20 to 30 feet and it stopped on the left side, it shows that vehicle of the complainant was being driven in such a speed that even after other vehicle hit the vehicle of the complainant, he could not stop his vehicle from 20 to 30 feet, whereas the offending vehicle being driven by the accused was standing at the same place. Further prosecution witnesses have deposed that there was a truck ahead from the vehicle of the accused and presence of that truck on the spot itself shows that the accused could have no option, but to take his vehicle to the right. 15. At the same point of time, PW-5, Sandeep Singh, has admitted that the on the spot there is a curve and as far as, PW-4, Mohammed Shah, both the drivers were rash and negligent. The statements of these witnesses can be taken against the complainant. Further the complainant was on VIP duty and he had to reach Kaithlighat within specific time. The difference between the time of accident and time the complainant was to reach Kaithlighat, as well as the distance between the place of accident and Kaithlighat makes it clear that the complainant was driving his vehicle in fast speed. 16. In these circumstance, it is clear that the complainant was driving his vehicle in a fast speed. On the other hand, there is nothing on record to suggest that the accused was driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. All this goes to show that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt and in these circumstances, acquittal of the accused needs no interference. 17. It has been held in K. Prakashan vs. P.K. Surenderan, (2008) 1 SCC 258 , that when two views are possible, appellate Court should not reverse the judgment of acquittal merely because the other view was possible. When judgment of trial Court was neither perverse, nor suffered from any legal infirmity or non consideration/mis-appreciation of evidence on record, reversal thereof by High Court was not justified. 18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in T. Subramanian vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2006) 1 SCC 401 , has held that where two views are reasonably possible from the very same evidence, prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 19. In view of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the discussion made hereinabove, I find no merit in this appeal and the same deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall also stands disposed of.