Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of H.P vs Beli Ram on 3 August, 2016
Author: Sureshwar Thakur
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 453 of 2007.
Date of Decision: 3rd August, 2016.
.
State of H.P. .....Appellant.
Versus
Beli Ram ....Respondents.
of
Coram
The Hon'ble rt Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur,
Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the Appellant: Mr. Vivek Singh Attri, Dy.
A.G. For the Respondent: Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate.
_______________________________________________________ Sureshwar Thakur, Judge (Oral).
The instant appeal stands directed by the State of H.P. against the judgment of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lahaul-Spiti at Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, rendered on 23.7.2007 in Cr. Case No. 302-I of 2004/364-II of 2005, whereby, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent herein for his allegedly committing offences punishable under ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:57:22 :::HCHP 2 Sections 279, 304-A, IPC and Section 184 of the Motor Vehicle Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
However, it convicted the accused for his committing .
an offence punishable under Section 187 of the Act besides sentenced him to face imprisonment uptill the rising of the Court and to pay fine of Rs.500 and in default of payment of fine amount to undergo simple of imprisonment for 30 days.
2. The facts relevant to decide the instant case rt are that on 15.6.2004 accused Beli Ram was driving Jeep No. HP-49-1334 from Banjar side towards Larji.
At about 9.00 a.m. when the said Jeep reached at Zero Point at Sidhwan the same hit against one Smt. Pritamu Devi who was going towards Banjar. In this accident Smt. Pritamu Devi suffered fatal injuries and died on the spot. After this accident the accused fled away from the spot. This accident was witnessed by Sh. Tabe Ram, complainant who was coming to Sidhwan. He reported the matter to the police and on the basis of his statement FIR was registered in Police Station, Banjar. Thereafter the Investigating Officer completed all the codal formalities.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:57:22 :::HCHP 33. On conclusion of the investigations, into the offence, allegedly committed by the accused, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure .
was prepared and filed in the Court.
4. Notice of accusation was put to the accused by the learned trial Court for his committing offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A of the IPC and of Sections 184 and 187 of the Act. In proof of the prosecution case, rt the prosecution examined six 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 trial Court, in which he claimed innocence and pleaded false implication. However, he did not lead any defence evidence.
5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused for his allegedly committing offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A, IPC and Section 184 of the Motor Vehicle Act. However, it convicted the accused for his committing an offence punishable under Section 187 of the Act ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:57:22 :::HCHP 4
6. The State of H.P. is aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused for his allegedly committing offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A of the .
IPC and 184 of the Act. The learned Deputy Advocate General has concertedly and vigorously contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court standing not based on a proper appreciation of of the evidence on record, rather, theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation of material on rt record. Hence, he contends qua the findings of acquittal being reversed by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and theirs being replaced by findings of conviction.
7. On the other hand, the learned defence counsel has with considerable force and vigour, contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the Court below standing based on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record and theirs not necessitating interference, rather theirs meriting vindication.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:57:22 :::HCHP 58. 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. Pritamu Devi, suffered fatal injuries on her person in sequel to hers standing struck on the ill-
fated day by a jeep bearing No. HP-49-1334 driven purportedly in a negligent manner at the relevant time of by the accused. In proof of its case, the prosecution has relied upon the depositions of PW-1 Tabe Ram and rt PW-2 Beli Ram. Both the aforesaid witnesses stand espoused by the learned Deputy Advocate General to render a credible ocular version qua the incident. He proceeds to canvass of the learned trial Court in not imputing credence to their testimonies has sequelled gross miscarriage of justice.
10. The aforesaid submission addressed before this Court by the learned Deputy Advocate General would stand to be countenanced by this Court only when on an incisive reading of their respective versions qua the incident is connotative of their respective versions comprised in their respective examinations-in-chief being bereft of any vice of any ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:57:22 :::HCHP 6 inter se contradictions vis-a-vis their respective versions qua it comprised in their respective cross-
examinations besides their respective versions qua .
the incident being devoid of any stain of any intra se contradictions. Even though an incisive perusal of their testimonies fosters a conclusion of none of the aforesaid stains gripping their aforesaid respective of versions qua the occurrence yet on the facet aforesaid it would be insagacious for this Court to reverse the rt findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court vis-a-vis the accused.
11. The reason for dispelling the vigour of rendition by them of an ocular account qua the occurrence emerges from a communication occurring in the deposition of PW-2 qua his unraveling the incident to PW-1 Tabe Ram. The existence of aforesaid echoings in the testification of PW-2 galvanizes an inference of the ocular narrative qua the incident rendered by PW-1 holding no tenacity, his being unavailable at the relevant site of occurrence.
Contrarily, the derivative which sprouts thereform is of on PW-2 purveying to him communications qua the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:57:22 :::HCHP 7 occurrence his proceeding to thereupon obviously depose a hear say account qua it, hence, rendering his version qua the occurrence not constituting any .
rendition by him of an ocular account thereto. Even though PW-1 stands construed by this Court to be not an ocular witness to the occurrence rather his rendering a hear say version qua it, yet the sole of testimony of PW-2, an ocular witness to the occurrence, if shorn of any vice of falsity would alone rt hold sway to nail findings of conviction against the accused. Apparently, he in his testification narrates an ocular account qua the occurrence, yet his testimony is ridden with gross improvements besides embellishments spurring from the palpable fact of his in his previous statement recorded in writing making a disclosure therein of his at the relevant time sitting in a hotel wherefrom obviously he stood incapacitated to sight the occurrence, whereas in digression therefrom he in his deposition recorded before the learned trial court makes echoings therein of his at the relevant time standing positioned in a shelter located in proximity to the site of occurrence wherefrom he ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:57:22 :::HCHP 8 viewed the occurrence, renders, for reiteration, the aforesaid communications to contradict besides being a rife embellishment upon his previous statement .
recorded in writing. Consequently, his deposition is discardable. Furthermore, their occurs a denial by him in his cross-examination qua the genesis of the occurrence standing revealed to him by one Beli Ram of yet the said denial is inconsequential given the factum of his previous statement recorded in writing holding rt a recital qua the occurrence standing communicated to him by one Beli ram. The occurrence of the aforesaid factum in his previous statement recorded in writing, renders his contradicting it also his departing therefrom while deposing in Court to grip his testification qua the occurrence to be an improvement besides an embellishment therefrom besides also coaxes an inference of his not holding an ocular view of the occurrence rather his rendering a hear say account qua it. Consequently, his testimony is discardable, especially when one Beli Ram, who actually revealed the occurrence to him besides was ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:57:22 :::HCHP 9 the only ocular witness to the occurrence remained unexamined by the prosecution .
12. For the reasons which have been recorded .
hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned trial Court below has appraised the entire evidence on record in a wholesome and harmonious manner apart therefrom the analysis of the material on record by of the learned trial Court does not suffer from any perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non rt appreciation of evidence on record, rather it has aptly appreciated the material available on record.
13. Consequently, I find no merit in the instant appeal which is accordingly dismissed and the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court is affirmed and maintained. Records be sent back forthwith.
(Sureshwar Thakur)
3 rd
August, 2016 Judge.
(jai)
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:57:22 :::HCHP