Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 430 (HP)

State Of H P v. Kuldeep Chand

2021-07-19

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2021
JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - Accused Kuldeep Chand, became charged for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, and, under Section 338 of the IPC, upon, Criminal Case No. 8-1 of 2007/64- II of 2007. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur made an order of acquittal with respect to the afore drawn charges against the accused. 2. The State of Himachal Pradesh becomes aggrieved from the afore verdict of acquittal pronounced by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned, and, for casting an onslaught thereto, it has preferred the extant appeal before this Court. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 10.09.2006 at about 7.30 a.m., PW-1 Dilbag was coming out of the bus-stand. A bus bearing registration No. HP 38A-3708 came with the high speed and hit Dilbag Singh. Dilbag Singh fell down and his legs were crushed under the tyre of bus. This incident was witnessed by Karam Singh, PW-2. The accident had taken place due to high speed and negligence of the accused. The injured was taken to hospital. An intimation was given to police on which an entry in the daily diary was recorded. HC Parkash PW-11, went to the hospital for verification and, recorded the statement of Dilbag Singh, on basis of which FIR was registered in the police station concerned. Medical examination of Dilbag Singh was conducted by Dr. K.S. Dogra PW-3, who found injuries on his person. X-rays were advised and after going through ex-rays, PW-5, Dr. P.K. Soni found that there was a fracture of right femur middle 1/3rd and fibula of left leg in the part exrayed. He issued report Exd.PW5/B. Nature of injury was stated to be grievous by Dr. K.S. Dogra after going through the report. This injury could have been caused in a motor vehicle accident. MLC Ex.PW3/A was issued. Investigation were conducted by PW-11. H.C. Shiv Parkash, who prepared the site plan Ex.PW11/A. Bus bearing registration No. HP-38A-3708 was seized along with the documents. Mechanical examination of the bus was conducted by PW-4 Manohar Singh, who found that there was no mechanical defect in the vehicle. Photographs of the spot were also taken but these could not be developed due to technical defect. Statements of the witnesses were recorded as per their versions. 4. Mechanical examination of the bus was conducted by PW-4 Manohar Singh, who found that there was no mechanical defect in the vehicle. Photographs of the spot were also taken but these could not be developed due to technical defect. Statements of the witnesses were recorded as per their versions. 4. In proof of the prosecution case, as, embodied in FIR, borne in Ex.PW8/B, and, as become recorded in pursuance to a statement made under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C., by the victim, statement whereof is embodied in Ex.PW1/A, the victim/informant one Dilbag Singh, stepped into the witness box as PW-1. During the course of his examination-in-chief, he proved his statement, recorded, under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C., by the Investigating Officer, and, statement whereof, is embodied in Ex.PW1/A. In his examination-in-chief, he has fully proven the genesis of the prosecution case, as, is embodied in ex.PW1/A, and, in pursuance whereof, FIR, borne in Ex.PW8/B became recorded with the Police Station concerned. He faced, the ordeal of a rigorous cross-examination. However, during the course of his cross-examination, he has meted a firm denial to an exculpatory suggestion, meted to him, by the learned defence counsel, that the injuries as befell upon his person, were sequelled by his falling onto the road. Since, a reading of his crossexamination, does not disclose, that he has made any gross improvements, and, embellishments, vis-a-vis, his previous statement recorded in writing, thereupon, this Court assigns credence to his testification. 5. Pw-2, is, the purported ocular witness to the occurrence. In his examination-in-chief, he supports, and, corroborates the version, as, echoed by PW-1. However, no credence is to be meted to his testification, comprised in his examination-in-chief, as, in his cross-examination, he acquiesced to a suggestion that at the relevant time, he was standing at the counter of the busstand. Furthermore, he has also deposed that the occurrence happened in the vicinity of the in-gate of the bus-stand. However, no credence is to be meted to his testification, comprised in his examination-in-chief, as, in his cross-examination, he acquiesced to a suggestion that at the relevant time, he was standing at the counter of the busstand. Furthermore, he has also deposed that the occurrence happened in the vicinity of the in-gate of the bus-stand. Since, the Investigating Officer, who stepped into the witness box as PW-11, though, in his examination-in-chief supported the version, as, comprised in Ex.PW1/A. Moreover, even though, in his cross-examination, the prosecution has not been able to underwhelm the drawings, by him of the site plan, borne in Ex.PW11/A. Nonetheless, since, PW-11, in his cross-examination, has made an echoing that the inter se distance, inter se the in-gate of the busstand, and, the counter of the bus-stand, is about 30-40 meters. Therefore, upon, combining the echoings made by PW-2, a purported ocular witness to the occurrence, that at the relevant time, he was standing at the counter of the busstand, whereas, the ill-fated mishap, occurred in the vicinity of the in-gate, hence with PW-11, making an communication, in his crossexamination, that, the inter se distance, inter se the in-gate of the bus-stand, and, counter of the bus-stand, is, about 30-40 meters, hence arouses an inference that given the afore immensity of distance inter se the place, at the relevant time, occupied by PW-2, and, the place whereat the illfated accident happened, that hence PW-2 was defacilitated to clearly, and, graphically capture the manner of happening of the occurrence, with the vividity, as, rather becomes deposed by him. The further corollary thereof is that his purported ocular account, in corroboration to the testification of PW-1, the victim/informant, is, completely devoid of any evidentiary worth. 6. Be that as it may, even though, on the sole testimony of the victim/informant, who stepped into the witness box as PW-1, and, who has throughout in his testification, made echoings hence bereft of any gross improvements, and, embellishments, vis-a-vis, his previous statement recorded in writing, and, as comprised in Ex.PW1/A, this Court would proceed to assign evidentiary merit to it. However, this Court refrains to assign evidentiary merit to the sole testimony of PW-1. However, this Court refrains to assign evidentiary merit to the sole testimony of PW-1. The reason for forming the afore conclusion is rested, upon, (a) the Doctor/Medical Practitioner, who stepped into the witness box as PW-3, and, who proved the drawing by him of MLC, borne in Ex.PW3/A, rather proceeding to in his cross-examination, make an echoing that the legs of the victim would have been completely pulverized, upon, the tyres of the offending vehicle moving over them. However, the injuries, as, disclosed in Ex.PW3/A, do not signify, that the legs of the victim/informant became completely pulverized, as, a sequel of PW1, rather making a testification, that the tyres of the bus drove over his legs, and, that they became crushed. Though, if there occurs any dichotomy inter se medical evidence, and, credible ocular account, as becomes rendered with respect to the incriminatory role ascribed to the accused, thereupon, the credible ocular account prevails, and, also underwhelms the probative vigour, if any, of contrary thereto medical evidence. However, the afore principle of law, is not applicable to the factual matrix, as, prevalent in the extant case. The reason for making the afore inference is founded, upon, the factum that PW-2, a purported ocular witness to the occurrence rather becoming disbelieved by this Court. Though, the singular testification of the victim/informant, if, credible, would yet have sustained the charge against the accused. However, since, for the reasons aforestated, his testimony, as ,made with respect to his legs being crushed under the tyres of the bus, became completely belied by medical evidence, thereupon his singular testimony becomes completely devoid of evidentiary merit. Furthermore since, even the corroborative thereto purported ocular account, as, rendered with respect to the genesis of the prosecution case hence by PW-2, becomes torpedoed. Therefore, reiteratedly the medical evidence occurring in the cross-examination of PW3, wherein, he belies the testification of PW-1, to the extent, that the riding of the tyres, upon, legs of the victim would have ensured theirs being completely pulverized, whereas, the observations made by him, with respect to the injuries found to be existing on the person of the victim, are not suggestive of the legs of the victim/informant, being completely crushed. Consequently, this Court completely disbelieves the genesis of the prosecution case. 7. Consequently, this Court completely disbelieves the genesis of the prosecution case. 7. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned trial Court concerned, 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 concerned, hence, also not suffers from any gross perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation, and, non appreciation of germane thereto evidence, on record. 8. Consequently, there is no merit in the extant appeal, and, it is dismissed accordingly. The judgment impugned before this Court is affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.