Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 411 (HP)

Sat Kartar Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2021-07-15

ANOOP CHITKARA

body2021
JUDGMENT : Anoop Chitkara, J. FIR NUMBER 31/2004 dated 18.2.2004, u/s 279, 336, 337, 307, IPC and 184, M.V Act, Registered at Police Station Gagret, District Una, HP SESSIONS TRIAL NUMBER 30/2007 SESSIONS CASE NUMBER 7/07 RBT 25/07/06, DECIDED ON 30.10.2008 Accused Sat Kartar Singh S. 279, IPC Convicted Sentence of imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment for 15 days Accused Sat Kartar Singh S. 279, IPC Convicted Sentence of imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment for 15 days S. 307, IPC Acquitted S.337, IPC Convicted Sentence of imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment for 7 days 1. Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Una for causing hurt while rash and negligent driving on public way, the convict has come up before this Court under Section 374 (II) of Cr.PC seeking acquittal. 2. On 18.2.2004, ASI Ashok Kumar (PW-14) informed the aforesaid Police Station through a Ruka under Section 154 Cr.PC recorded on the statement of Madan Lal (PW/1), Incharge, Toll Tax Barrier at Marwari. The complainant informed that he was posted as Incharge at Toll Tax Barrier, Marwari. The barrier of Excise Department was adjacent to his barrier. On 18.2.2004, the complainant alongwith Ram Singh (PW/2), Yashpal Singh (not examined), Chamel Singh (not examined) were present on duty and at the excise barrier, peon Sukh Lal (PW/4) was present. At about 4.30 p.m. one truck No. JK-02-8146 came from the side of Talwara. Sukh Lal (PW/4) and Chamel Singh (not examined) pulled the rope and signaled him to stop the truck. However, the truck driver instead of stopping the truck broke the rope and fled away from the spot and due to which, Chamel Singh suffered minor injuries. After that, Madan Lal (PW-1) took lift on a motorcycle and reached Police Post, Daulatpur. On reaching Daulatpur, he informed the police about the incident. From the police post, the incharge ASI Ashok Kumar (PW14) alongwith HHC Chint Ram (PW-7) reached bus stand, Daulatpur. At that time, they saw the said truck coming from Talwara side and police signaled it to stop. On reaching Daulatpur, he informed the police about the incident. From the police post, the incharge ASI Ashok Kumar (PW14) alongwith HHC Chint Ram (PW-7) reached bus stand, Daulatpur. At that time, they saw the said truck coming from Talwara side and police signaled it to stop. The truck driver tried to run his truck over the police and fled away. At that time, the police arranged one Tata Sumo and after boarding it, which was being driven by PW-11 Deepak Prashar, chased the truck. After crossing the truck, they laid a nakka and signaled the truck to stop. However, the truck driver did not stop the truck there and again tried to run over them and consequently tried to took away their life. Due to such act of the truck driver, all of them miraculously escaped. However, the truck driver was again able to flee away. The police officials again tried to chase the truck but the truck hit Tata Sumo from his side due to which they had a narrow escape. Subsequently, since a message had already been circulated by ASI Ashok Kumar through wireless and as such, another nakka was laid at Lal Singhi Bridge. At that place, the driver stopped the truck and after stopping the truck, the driver tried to run away towards the fields. In the meantime police officials also arrived there and all of them tried to chase him. Thereafter, the truck driver jumped over a barbed wire but could not cross it and fell there. On this he was nabbed by the police. Due to the act of running and falling, he received some injuries. Subsequently, he was arrested. Based on the aforesaid information, the police registered the FIR (Ext.PW9/A) mentioned above. The investigator took into possession the broken plastic rope vide Ext.PW1/D. Medical examination of Chamel Singh was got conducted by the police vide Ext. PW8/A. As per MCL, doctor Ashish Lakhi PW/8 recorded that Chamel singh had complained him pain on shoulder region. However, the doctor did not find any external injury. After completion of investigation, the Incharge of the Police Station presented a report under Section 173(2) Cr.PC and launched prosecution against the accused. The concerned Magistrate committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Una. However, the doctor did not find any external injury. After completion of investigation, the Incharge of the Police Station presented a report under Section 173(2) Cr.PC and launched prosecution against the accused. The concerned Magistrate committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Una. Vide order dated 5.10.2007, the learned Sessions Judge, Una framed charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 279, 337 and 307 IPC. The accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. In the trial, the prosecution examined almost all the witnesses but it neither examined Chamel Singh, who sustained injuries because of pulling of rope vide report of the doctor Ashish Lakhi (PW/8) nor presented any report about the dents caused to Tata Sumo being hit by the truck. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the Court put the incriminating circumstances to the accused under Section 313, Cr.PC. The accused admitted the existence of barrier but denied all other circumstances. In answer to Question No.12, he admitted that 15 to 20 persons were traveling in the truck. He also admitted that his licence was taken into possession. In answer to question No.22, the accused offered following explanation:- “The police present at Marwari tried to extort money as the passengers were carried in the truck. On failure to get money I was arrested at Lal Singhi and given beatings and has been implicated in false case.” In his defence, the accused examined one passenger of the truck namely Nirmala Devi as DW-1. Learned Trial Court partly accepted the case of the prosecution and convicted the accused for commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337, IPC and sentenced him as mentioned above in the caption. However, learned Trial Court did not find any evidence for the commission of offence punishable under Section 307, IPC and acquitted him of the said charges. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the convict came up before this Court by filing an appeal under Section 374(2), Cr.PC. However, there is no evidence that the State has challenged the acquittal of the accused under Section 307 IPC. Even at this stage, the only appeal listed before this Court is an appeal filed by the convict seeking acquittal. Mr. Ram Lal Thakur, learned Assistant Advocate General appearing for the State submits that he has no information about any such appeal filed by the State. Even at this stage, the only appeal listed before this Court is an appeal filed by the convict seeking acquittal. Mr. Ram Lal Thakur, learned Assistant Advocate General appearing for the State submits that he has no information about any such appeal filed by the State. If such appeal was filed by the State then the same must have been attached alongwith this file. As such, this court would proceed further with the assumption that no appeal was preferred by the State. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The allegations levelled by the complainant, i.e. Madan Lal (PW-1) were that when the truck driver was signaled to stop the truck then instead of haulting, he broke the rope and fled away. In the statement u/s 154, Cr.PC (PW1/A), he specifically stated that in the process of breaking the rope, Chamel Singh sustained injuries. While appearing as PW/1 Madan Lal testified that he was working at Marwari Toll Tax Barrier whose contractor was his brother Pawan Kumar. Similarly PW-4 Sukh Lal, who was posted as Peon at the Excise Barrier, Marwari also stated that a truck came from Talwara side in a very high speed and when he gave signal to the driver to stop the truck, then he did not stop at the barrier and broke the rope and fled away. He has also stated that Chamel Singh sustained injuries as he was pulling the rope and thereafter, Madan Lal followed the truck on motorcycle. Further case of the prosecution is that while absconding, the truck driver tried to run over the chasing party. The prosecution further led the evidence that initially they chased the truck on a motorcycle and after chasing the truck Madan Lal reported the matter to Police Post Daulatpur from where PW/14 ASI Ashok Kumar after arranging one Tata Sumo of Deepak Prashar PW-11 started chasing the truck. While chasing the said truck, the truck driver tried to overtake them and while doing so, he even hit the Tata Sumo with his truck also. However, the investigator did not get the Tata Sumo inspect from a motor mechanic to point out the dents received when the truck allegedly hit it. While chasing the said truck, the truck driver tried to overtake them and while doing so, he even hit the Tata Sumo with his truck also. However, the investigator did not get the Tata Sumo inspect from a motor mechanic to point out the dents received when the truck allegedly hit it. Furthermore, the learned Trial Court did not find evidence, qua the truck driver trying to run over the Tata Sumo and motorcycle, as convincing and also held that the allegations were not sufficient to make out a case for commission of offence punishable under Section 307, IPC and acquitted the accused. Thus the only charges which remain to be discussed and analyzed are for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337, IPC. The evidence qua Section 337 IPC has come in the testimony of PW-4 Sukh Lal, which was corroborated by PW-1 Madan Lal. They stated that when the truck was coming from Talwara side then the truck driver signaled the driver to stop the truck and simultaneously Chamel Singh pulled the rope. However, the truck driver did not stop and drove through the rope. In the statement under Section 154, Cr.PC Ext.PW1/A, Madan Lal specifically stated that the rope was broken. During investigation, the investigator recovered the broken rope vide Ext.PW1/D. The breaking of rope would imply that the impact of the truck hitting the rope was so strong that it broke the plastic rope which was held by Chamel Singh. PW/4 specifically stated that when the truck hit the rope, Chamel Singh fell down and he sustained injuries due to such fall. PW/1 Madan Lal also corroborated in his testimony that the person who was holding the rope sustained minor injuries. After that, Chamel Singh was taken to doctor PW/8 Ashish Lakhi, who conducted his medical examination. In his cross-examination, doctor admitted to be correct that if a person is holding a rope in his hand tightly and rope is full with force in the opposite direction, then hand will receive abrasions. The doctor also admitted to be correct that except complaint of pain in shoulder, there was no other injury. During the pendency of the trial, injured Chamel Singh died to reasons unrelated to the present case. Order dated 21.4.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Una reflects his death. The doctor also admitted to be correct that except complaint of pain in shoulder, there was no other injury. During the pendency of the trial, injured Chamel Singh died to reasons unrelated to the present case. Order dated 21.4.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Una reflects his death. Thus, the only relevant evidence to corroborate the injuries sustained by Chamel Singh is of the expert, i.e., doctor Ashish Lakhi, PW/8. Apart from the statement of the doctor wherein he admitted that in case a person was holding the rope and the impact was huge then the person holding rope would also receive abrasions on his hands, this is a common understanding that when the impact is so huge that it breaks the rope then it is obvious that abrasion would be caused due to friction of the rope in the hands. The absence of such abrasion does not support the story of the prosecution about the truck being fled away after breaking the rope. Once the very foundation, on which Madan Lal PW-1, ASI Ashok Kumar PW-14 and Deepak Prashar PW-11 and other persons chased the truck, is held to be not credible then what were the reasons of such chase also become very suspicious. As per the prosecution’s own case, 15 to 20 persons were sitting in the truck. DW-1 Nirmala Devi also testified that she was one such passenger. When the police intercepted the truck, they did not find any violation of Excise Act. Thus the reason for which the truck driver being fled away also becomes without any motive. The law is very well settled that the burden to prove the allegations remains on the prosecution and such burden never shifts. In this case, this Court has reasons to believe that the story of breaking the rope is not at all credible and rather belied because of the statement of doctor PW/8 Ashish Lakhi and as such it will be highly unsafe to believe the other remaining versions of the prosecution. It has also come in the evidence that except Chamel Singh who had only complained about pain in his shoulder region, none else received any injury. Given above, the evidence led by the prosecution is not credible. Consequently, there is no legally admissible evidence to uphold the conviction of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337, IPC. Given above, the evidence led by the prosecution is not credible. Consequently, there is no legally admissible evidence to uphold the conviction of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337, IPC. The evidence required to bring the offences within the ambit of Sections 279 and 337, IPC is not established by the prosecution. The ingredients of these offences are missing. A perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court reveals that there is no discussion on the credibility of the story of prosecution about the absence of abrasions due to rope and that if the truck was driven in a rash and negligent manner then why 15 to 20 passengers, who were sitting in the truck, did not receive any injury. There is also no discussion that if the driving was rash and negligent then why Nirmala Devi, DW/1 was not cross-examined by the prosecution to that effect. Hence, for all the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is accordingly allowed and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Una is set aside and the convict is acquitted of the charged offences. Bail bonds are discharged. Accused shall be entitled to refund of fine, if deposited by him, when he files such application in the concerned court. All pending applications, if any, are also closed.