Himachal Pradesh High Court
Jasbir Singh vs State Of H.P on 22 May, 2017
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. Revision No. 48 of 2012
.
Reserved on: 28.04.2017
Date of decision: 22.05.2017
Jasbir Singh ... Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. ... Respondent
Coram :
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
For the petitioner: Ms. Seema Guleria, Advocate, for the
petitioner.
For the respondent: Mr. V.S. Chauhan, Additional
Advocate General with Mr. Vikram
Thakur Deputy Advocate General.
Ajay Mohan Goel, J. :
By way of this revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, in Cr. Appeal No. 5 of 2011 dated 10.08.2011, vide which, learned Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal filed by the present petitioner upheld 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2017 23:59:49 :::HCHP 2the judgment of conviction passed against the present petitioner by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st .
Class, Bilaspur, in Case No. 7/2 of 2K/1999 dated 17.08.2010, whereby learned trial Court had convicted the present petitioner for commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code and had imposed the following sentences upon him:-
"Convict is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 279 of I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month, simple imprisonment for 6 months and a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 337 of I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, the convict shall undergo simple imprisonment of one month, simple imprisonment for 6 months and a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 338 of I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, the convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for one moth and simple imprisonment for 2 years and a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 304-A of I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, the convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months. All the sentences shall run concurrently."
2. The case of the prosecution was that on 04.09.1999 at around 12.55 P.M. at Ghamrolla, accused was ::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2017 23:59:49 :::HCHP 3 driving bus bearing registration No. PB-12B-9414 on the public road and due to his rash and negligent driving, he could .
not control the same which fell down in a Khud causing injuries to many of the passengers and causing death of 10 of such passengers. Further, as per the prosecution injured persons were moved to the hospital and an FIR was registered. After the occurrence of the incident, medical examination of injured revealed that they had sustained both simple as well as grievous injuries. Postmortem report of the deceased passengers was also got conducted. After the registration of the FIR, spot was visited by the police and spot map was also prepared. Mechanical report of the bus was also prepared in the course of investigation.
3. After the completion of investigation, challan was filed in the Court and as a prima facie case was found against the accused, notice of accusation was put to the accused for commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Learned trial Court held that the prosecution had successfully established on record that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving on the part ::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2017 23:59:49 :::HCHP 4 of the petitioner which act of his was in fact an act which endangered human life and personal safety of others. It was .
held by learned trial Court that it stood established on record that it was because of the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner that the bus fell down in a Khud causing simple as well as grievous injuries to many of the passengers besides causing death of 10 passengers. While arriving at the said conclusion, learned trial Court took into consideration the statements of prosecution witnesses including the statement of PW-8 Sanjay Kumar who deposed that he was serving in Home Guard and on the fateful day he was posted at Ghamrolla bridge and was on duty from 12.00 Noon to 3.00 P.M. This witness further stated that traffic from Bilaspur to Swarghat was closed and from Swarghat to Bilaspur was open and in the meanwhile one bus bearing registration No. PB-12B-9414 which was on its way from Ludhiana to Manikaran reached the spot. This witness further stated that two loaded trucks were going to Bilaspur ahead of the said bus, which was being driven by the accused in high speed.
This witness stated that he signalled the driver of the bus to stop the same who did not do so and on account of high speed of the same, the bus fell down in Khud. He also ::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2017 23:59:49 :::HCHP 5 deposed that there were 20-25 passengers in the bus who sustained injuries and six passengers in fact died at the .
spot. This witness also stated that he informed the police about the occurrence of the incident and thereafter, police reached the spot. Learned trial Court also took note of the fact that the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner also stood established on record from the testimony of PW-3 Surinder Mohan, who was a co-passenger in the bus alongwith his wife, who also categorically stated that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the accused. Learned trial Court also took note of the statement of PW-7 Surinder Chand who was posted as Traffic Incharge at Ghamrolla bridge on the date and time when the accident took place as well as the statement of PW-12 Harjinder Singh who was the conductor of the bus being driven by the accused which met with accident, both of whom in unison deposed that the accident in fact had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the accused. Learned trial Court also took into consideration the statement of Dr. Renu Rattan who entered the witness box as PW-4 and stated that she had conducted the postmortem of the deceased. Learned trial Court also took note of the fact that the factum of the ill fated ::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2017 23:59:49 :::HCHP 6 bus driven by the accused was not denied by him. It was further held by learned trial Court that defence of the accused .
was that there was a mechanical defect in the bus. It was held by learned trial Court that it was not proved that the accident took place on account of mechanical defect. On these basis, it was held by learned trial Court that the prosecution had successfully established that on 04.09.1999 at about 12.55 P.M., accused was driving bus bearing registration No. PB-12B-9414 on the public road in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others which bus fell in Khud because of the rash and negligent driving of the accused resulting in death of 10 passengers as well as resulting injury to many others.
5. The appeal preferred by the accused against the said judgment of conviction was dismissed by learned Appellate Court which upheld the judgment of conviction passed by learned trial Court. It was held by learned Appellate Court that there were neither any inconsistencies in the testimony of the witnesses of the prosecution nor there was any doubt about their credibility and truthfulness of the same. Learned Appellate Court held that PW-3 Surinder ::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2017 23:59:49 :::HCHP 7 Mohan and PW-12 Harjinder Singh, both were occupants of the vehicle being passenger and conductor respectively.
.
Learned Appellate Court further held that both these witnesses had categorically deposed that the bus was being driven in rash and negligent manner by the accused and the passengers had requested the accused to drove slowly but he did not accede to their request. Learned trial Court also held that PW-7 Surinder Chand and PW-8 Sanjay Kumar who were present at Ghamrolla for traffic control purposes had corroborated the statements of PW-3 and PW-12, who all had deposed in the Court that the bus was being driven in a very high speed and despite driver of the bus being signalled to stop the same, he did not stop the bus, as a result of which the same fell down in the Khud on account of rash and negligent driving of the accused. Learned Appellate Court further held that no infirmity could be pointed out in the statements of the said witnesses by learned defence counsel and though both the witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross-examination, however, nothing favourable could be elicited by the defence from their cross-examination. It was also held by learned Appellate Court that contention of the defence that the accident took place due to mechanical defect ::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2017 23:59:49 :::HCHP 8 could not be established on record and in fact mechanical report dated 04.09.1999 demonstrated that there was no .
mechanical defect in the bus. It was further held by learned Appellate Court that the factum of many of the passengers having received injuries and death of 10 persons also stood proved on record and there was no reason to discredit the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. On these basis, learned Appellate Court upheld the judgment of conviction passed against the accused by learned trial Court.
6. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has primarily challenged the judgments passed by both learned Courts below on the ground that there was perversity in the findings returned against the present petitioner by learned Courts below as they failed to appreciate that the statement of PW-3 could not be relied upon as he was an interested witness and further there were major contradictions in the statements of PW-7 and PW-8 which were ignored by learned Courts below and further the factum of accident having been occurred on account of mechanical defect was also not ::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2017 23:59:49 :::HCHP 9 considered in its correct perspective by learned trial Court.
No other point was urged.
.
8. Mr. V.S. Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General, on the other hand argued that there was neither any infirmity nor perversity with the judgments of conviction passed against the petitioner/accused by both learned Courts below. It was submitted by Mr. Chauhan that findings of conviction returned by learned Courts below were duly borne out from the records of the case and statements r of the prosecution witnesses demonstrated and proved beyond reasonable doubt that the unfortunate accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner/accused which had resulted into loss of 10 lives besides injuries to many other persons. It was further urged by Mr. Chauhan that even otherwise in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction this Court was not to re-appreciate the evidence and as the findings returned by both learned Courts below were duly borne out from the records of the case, the said judgments did not warrant any interference.
Accordingly, he prayed that as there is no merit in the petition, the same be dismissed.
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2017 23:59:49 :::HCHP 109. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case as well as the .
judgments passed by both learned Courts below.
10. It is not in dispute that bus in issue was being driven by the accused when the same met with an accident resulting in injuries to Surinder Mohan, Suresh, Yogesh, Vishal, Surjeet Singh, Karnail, Roshan Lal, Bipnesh, Kuldeep Singh, Anita Devi, Jeeta Devi, Vicky, Jasbir, Ram Kumar, Dhian Singh, r Iqbal Singh, Swaran Singh, Harminder, Chinderpal, Dirik and Yuvesh and death of Kusumlata, Fullan Devi, Chuni Lal, Rajinder Kaur, Onkar Singh, Sandip Kumar, Parkas Kaur, Pardeep, Chuni Lal and Vivek. The contention of the petitioner is that the accident did not take place on account of his rash and negligent driving but the same occurred due to a mechanical defect in the ill fated bus.
Records demonstrate that the accident having occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the accused has been proved on record by the testimony of PW-8 Sanjay Kumar who was on duty on the spot when the accident took place and who in his deposition deposed that when he saw the bus being driven by the accused approaching, he signalled the driver of the same who stopped the same, however, the ::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2017 23:59:49 :::HCHP 11 driver did not stop the bus and continuing to drive the same in rash and negligent manner and also in high speed which .
resulted in the unfortunate accident. Besides this, the factum of the accident having taken place on account of rash and negligent driving, has also been proved on record by the prosecution on the strength of the statement of PW-7 Surinder Chand who was on duty as Traffic Incharge at the spot when the accident took place as well as PW-8 Sanjay Kumar and PW-12 Harjinder Singh who in fact was the conductor of the ill fated bus. In this background when we peruse the statement of PW-3 who has also duly corroborated the case of the prosecution, in my considered view, the testimony of this witness cannot be brushed aside on the ground that he is interested witness. Because this witness lost his wife in the said accident, the same cannot be a ground to discredit his testimony or not to believe him. This witness was an eye witness and unfortunately he lost his wife in the same accident but then the credibility of this witness could not be impeached during the course of his cross-examination by the defence. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that learned Courts below ::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2017 23:59:49 :::HCHP 12 erred in not appreciating that PW-3 was an interested witness.
.
11. As far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that there were major contradictions in the statements of PW-7 and PW-8 is concerned, in my considered view, this contention is also without any merit. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, there was discrepancies in the statements of PW-7 and PW-8 with regard to the directions on which the vehicles were moving at the relevant time when the accident took place. PW-7 stated that movement of traffic was from Bilalspur towards Swarghat while PW-8 stated that traffic from Swarghat to Bilaspur side was open. In my considered view, this minor discrepancy in the statements of PW-7 and PW-8 is not so major discrepancy so as to shroud the entire case of the prosecution with suspicion. Except this minor discrepancy, both PW-7 and PW-8 in unison deposed in Court the factum of the bus approaching from Swarghat side towards Bilaspur which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner on account of which the same fell into gorge. Both these witnesses deposed that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the accused. Therefore, in my considered ::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2017 23:59:49 :::HCHP 13 view, there is no merit in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that there is perversity in the findings returned .
by learned Courts below as they have not considered the contradictions in the statements of PW-7 and PW-8.
12. As far as the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner qua the learned Courts below not appreciating that the accident took place on account of there being a mechanical defect in the bus is concerned, this defence could not be probablized by the accused. Not only this, the conductor of the bus, who entered the witness box as PW-12, has also not stated that before the bus met with the unfortunate accident any mechanical defect had developed and this witness rather has also supported the case of the prosecution and he has stated in Court that the unfortunate accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner.
13. Besides this, I have also gone through the judgments passed by learned Courts below as well as records of the case and the perusal of the same demonstrates that the findings arrived at by learned Courts below against the accused are duly supported by the evidence on record.
Therefore, it cannot be said that the findings returned by ::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2017 23:59:49 :::HCHP 14 learned Courts below against the accused are either borne out from the records or the same are perverse.
.
14. Thus, in view of the discussion held above, as there is no perversity with the findings returned by both learned Courts below, this revision petition is dismissed as there is no merit in the same. Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, also stand disposed of.
May
(BSS)
22, 2017
r to (Ajay Mohan Goel),
Judge
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2017 23:59:49 :::HCHP