Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Sachin Sood on 15 October, 2019
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA .
Cr. Appeal No. 171 of 2008
Reserved on : October 14 , 2019
Date of Decision : October 15 , 2019
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Appellant
Versus
Sachin Sood ....Respondent.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant : Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Additional Advocate General for the appellant-State.
For the respondent : Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate, for the respondent.
Anoop Chitkara, Judge.
Challenging the acquittal of the respondent for rash and negligent driving on a public way and for causing death by such negligence the State has come up before this Court by filing the Criminal Appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. The gist of the facts, apposite to arrive at a just conclusion, traces its origin from the statement of Sh. Kancha Lama (PW-1) 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2019 20:24:20 :::HCHP 2recorded under Section 154 Cr.PC (Ext.PW-1/A). He stated that on 11.8.2004, at around 2.30 day time, a person named Madan Singh .
who was working as a labourer was walking on the left side of the road towards Seobagh bridge. At that time, one maruti van was coming from Kullu side towards Manali and was overtaking some vehicle. The said van hit Madan Singh. The accident took place in front of his shop and he immediately reached at the spot. He noticed injury on the head of Madan Singh and carried him to the hospital in some vehicle. He further stated that the Registration Number of the van, which hit Madan Singh, was HP 01 0236 and it was being driven by Sachin (respondent herein). On reaching the hospital the Doctor declared him brought dead.
3. On the basis of statement (Ext. PW-1/A), FIR No. 384, dated 11.8.2004 (Ext. PW-6/A), under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the respondent-accused in the file of Police Station Kullu, Distt. Kullu, H.P.
4. The police got conducted the post mortem examination of the deceased in Zonal Hospital Mandi and post mortem report was tendered in evidence as Ext. PA. As per the post mortem report the cause of death was massive head injury caused due to lacerated wound on the skull. Thus as per the report of the Doctor the cause of death was injuries caused in accident.
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2019 20:24:20 :::HCHP 35. During investigation the police prepared the spot map (Ext.
PW-6/C). The Investigating Officer SI-Dorje Ram (PW-6) also got the .
van mechanically examined from a mechanic of Himachal Road Transport Corporation and as per its report (Ext. PW-3/A) the steering wheel of the van was noticed to be free. After the completion of investigation, police filed report under Section 173 (2) Cr.PC.
6. Vide order dated 27.02.2006, the learned trial Court in Cr.
Case No. 355-I/2004(84-II/2005) put notice of accusation to the respondent-accused for commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. The prosecution examined the complainant Sh. Kancha Lama as PW-1 who reiterated his stand as was taken by him in the statement under Section 154 Cr.PC (Ext. PW-1/A), however, he clarified that he did not witness the accident. He further clarified that he could not say that who was at fault for this accident.
8. The prosecution also examined Sh. Padam Singh (PW-3) a Mechanic of Himachal Road Transport Corporation, as an expert witness, who conducted the mechanical examination of the van in question. According to the report (Ext. PW-3/A) the steering wheel of the van could become free and the driver would not come to know ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2019 20:24:20 :::HCHP 4 about this. He further clarified that because of the problem in bearing the steering gets free and after that the steering goes out of .
control.
9. After completion of the prosecution evidence, trial Court in compliance to Section 313 Cr.PC put incriminating circumstances to the respondent-accused. In answers to questions put under Section 313 Cr.PC the accused has denied the accusations and similarly all the material circumstances.
10. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lahaul-Spiti at Kullu, H.P., vide judgment dated 13.12.2007, had acquitted the accused for commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, State of H.P. has challenged the same by way of the present appeal.
11. I have heard Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant-State and Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, learned counsel for the respondent-accused. I have also gone through the complete record.
12. Sh. Kancha Lama (PW-1), during his examination-in-chief, stated that he did not notice the accident taking place. He further clarified that he could not say that who was at fault for this accident.
Even otherwise, Kancha Lama was running a shop of momos and must be busy in his business pursuits. Generally the attention of the ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2019 20:24:20 :::HCHP 5 people is drawn towards an accident only when they hear the sound of banging of the vehicles or commotion taking place due to the .
accident. Therefore, this witness appears to be credible and no fault can be found in his testimony. Even otherwise, the ingredients of Sections 279 and 304-A IPC would be attracted only when there is rash or negligent act on the part of the driver of the vehicle. In the present case, the report of the Mechanic (Ext. PW-3/A) was clear that the steering wheel of the van had gone free. During his cross examination the said Mechanic Padam Singh, who appeared as PW-
3, stated that such steering got free because of the defect in the bearing and the driver would not have come to know that the steering had gone free. As such, here the fault was of the vehicle and it cannot be said that the driver was driving rashly or negligently at the relevant time.
13. I have also gone through the judgment of the trial Court which is well reasoned and is based on complete, correct and proper appreciation of evidence (documentary and ocular) so placed on record. There is neither any illegality/infirmity nor any perversity with the same, resulting into miscarriage of justice.
14. In view of the above discussions, I find that there is no merit in the appeal and hence the same is dismissed. The judgment ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2019 20:24:20 :::HCHP 6 rendered by the learned trial Court in Criminal Case No. 355-I/2004 (84-II/2005), dated 13.12.2007 is affirmed.
.
Bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. All pending applications (if any) are closed. Records of the Court below be immediately sent back.
(Anoop Chitkara), Judge.
October 15 , 2019 (PK) ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2019 20:24:20 :::HCHP