Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 846 (HP)

Ajmer Singh v. State of H. P.

2018-05-07

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2018
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal stands directed against the conviction and sentence, pronounced, upon the appellant/convict/accused, by the learned trial Court vis-a-vis the charge framed against him, for commission of offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 279, and, Section 337 of the IPC. 2. The facts relevant to decide the instant case are that on 9.8.2006 at about 5.30 p.m., when Trilochan Singh, PW-1 was returning back to his house at Rampur along with his wife Pawna and his son on his scooter bearing No. HP-31-0387 and had reached near Jhalera, a truck had come from behind rashly incoherently in a zig-zag manner and hit him from behind. He was thrown on the unmettled portion of the road while wife had also sustained grievous injuries and she had immediately died at the spot. Is son had also received multiple injuries because of the accident. As per the prosecution story the accused had fled from the spot and had been later apprehended by the people near the petrol pump on the Amb road after some time of the occurrence. When the accused was apprehended, he was thoroughly drunk. On the statement of PW-1, FIR Ex.PW1/A was registered with the police station. Thereafter police completed all the codel formalities. 3. On conclusion of investigation(s), 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 competent Court. 4. The accused stood charged by the learned trial Court, for, his committing offence(s) punishable under Sections 304-II, 279, 337 and Section 201 of the IPC. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 9 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. 5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, recorded findings of conviction against the accused/appellant herein. 6. The appellant/convict, stands, aggrieved by the judgment of conviction recorded against him, by the learned trial Court. 5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, recorded findings of conviction against the accused/appellant herein. 6. The appellant/convict, stands, aggrieved by the judgment of conviction recorded against him, by the learned trial Court. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/convict, has concertedly and vigorously contended qua the findings of conviction 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 mis-appreciation, by it, of the material on record. Hence, he contends qua the findings of conviction warranting reversal by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, and, theirs standing replaced by findings of acquittal. 7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General has with considerable force and vigour, contended qua the findings of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court, rather standing based, on a mature and balanced appreciation, by it, 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. One Pawna Kumari, who was aboard the scooter, driven by PW-1 Trilochan Singh besides her son, who was also aboard thereon, and, also PW-1, who was driving the scooter, respectively, in sequel to the injuries suffered upon their persons, in a collision occurred inter se the relevant scooter vis-a-vis the truck driven at the relevant time, by the accused hence suffered demise besides, injuries stood entailed on their persons. PW-3 has proven the MLCs, respectively borne, in Ex.PW3/b AND in Ex.PW3/C, MLCs whereof stood prepared in sequel to his examining, the injured/victims, PW-1, and, his son. PW-3 has also proven the apposite postmortem report, borne in Ex.PW3/J, wherein he ascribes, the cause of demise of deceased Pawna Kumari vis-a-vis the antemortem injuries delineated therein. 10. Furthermore, the prosecution, for proving the genesis of the occurrence, embodied in FIR, borne in Ex.PW7/A, depended upon the testifications, of ocular witnesses. The prime ocular witness vis-a-vis the relevant occurrence is PW-1, the husband of the deceased, and, who at the relevant time, was astride the scooter, as its driver. 10. Furthermore, the prosecution, for proving the genesis of the occurrence, embodied in FIR, borne in Ex.PW7/A, depended upon the testifications, of ocular witnesses. The prime ocular witness vis-a-vis the relevant occurrence is PW-1, the husband of the deceased, and, who at the relevant time, was astride the scooter, as its driver. In his deposition, he has with pin pointed clarity ascribed negligence, to the accused/convict, negligence whereof is voiced by him, to be embodied, in his driving the relevant truck, in a high speed, and, in a zig zag manner, whereupon, hence, despite, the scooter being driven on the appropriate site of the road, rather the offending truck striking the scooter from behind. The testification of PW-1, embodied in his examination-in-chief, though, was concerted to be shred of its efficacy, by the defence counsel, by the latter subjecting him to an ordeal, of a rigorous cross-examination, yet, during course whereof, no elicitation occurs, (a) for hence belying the involvement, of the accused/convict in the relevant accident (b) nor also for belying the factum of the scooter being driven on the appropriate side of the road, (c) and, of the truck being driven on the inappropriate side of the road, and, it hence striking the scooter, from the rear (d) in sequel, the testification of PW-1 is to be imputed absolute credence. The testification of PW-1 is also lent corroboration, by the testification rendered by PW-2 Darshan Singh, another ocular witness to the occurrence. He in absolute tandem with the testification of PW-1, has voiced a version, wherein, he ascribes, an incriminatory role, to the accused/convict. Another ocular witness to the occurrence, PW-4, has alike PW-1, and, PW-2 lent corroboration to the genesis of the occurrence, embodied in Ex.PW7/A. Since, the tensifications of all aforesaid prosecution witnesses, is bereft of any taint or blemish of any intra se or inter se contradictions, thereupon, absolute sanctity besides credence is to be imputed, to their respectively rendered testifications. 11. Be that as it may, the aforesaid witnesses also proceeded to identify the accused, in Court. The identification of the accused in Court, by the aforesaid witnesses, is a sequel of the accused/convict hence uncontrovertedly, subsequent to the accident, rather standing apprehended near the petrol pump on the Amb road. 11. Be that as it may, the aforesaid witnesses also proceeded to identify the accused, in Court. The identification of the accused in Court, by the aforesaid witnesses, is a sequel of the accused/convict hence uncontrovertedly, subsequent to the accident, rather standing apprehended near the petrol pump on the Amb road. The factum of the accused/convict being apprehended thereat, remained unbelied by the defence, nor the accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., proceeded to therein hence espouse of his not driving the offending truck, rather with his in the proceedings, drawn, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., hence, meteing an answer, of his not fleeing from the spot, rather his throughout remaining present near the site of the apt collision(s), in sequel thereto, an inference is garnered qua the identification of the accused/convict in Court by PW-2, remaining unbelied besides, of, the accused acquiescing, of his, at the relevant, driving the offending truck. 12. Since, as aforestated, with the aforesaid PWs categorically voicing vis-a-vis the incriminatory role, of the accused/convict in the relevant occurrence, and, when their respectively rendered testifications, are, unblemished besides when the doctor, who conducted, the medical examination of the accused/convict, and, prepared his report, borne in Ex.PW3/G, and, with clear voicing(s) occurring therein, of the blood, and, urine samples of convict/accused, carrying therein percentum of alcohol, beyond, the permissible limit, thereupon, the testifications of ocular witnesses, wherein, they ascribe vis-a-vis the accused, an incriminatory role of his driving, the offending truck in a rash and negligent manner, obviously hence garners therefrom, an immense formidable strength. 13. 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. 14. Consequently, the instant appeal is dismissed and the judgment of conviction is affirmed and maintained. 14. Consequently, the instant appeal is dismissed and the judgment of conviction is affirmed and maintained. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and fact that the accused/convict/appellant is the sole bread earner of his family, hence, the sentence imposed upon the accused/appellant by the learned trial Court is modified, and, the convict/accused/appellant herein is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment, for one year, for his committing an offence punishable under Section 304-A of the IPC, and, he shall pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. He further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, for his committing an offence punishable under Section 279 of the IPC, and, he shall pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The convict/appellant herein further sentenced to under rigorous imprisonment for three months for his committing an offence punishable under Section 337 of the IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. All the sentences shall run concurrently. The period already undergone by the accused/convict/appellant herein either in police or in judicial custody is ordered to be set off, from, the sentences awarded against him. The learned trial Court is directed to henceforth promptly execute the sentence. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.