Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Himachal Pradesh High Court

State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Rohtash Singh on 24 May, 2018

Author: Vivek Singh Thakur

Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA             Cr. Appeal No. 515 of 2008 .

                                                Decided on:       24.05.2018





    State of Himachal Pradesh                                  ...Appellant

                                      Versus





    Rohtash Singh                                              ...Respondent



    Coram

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? Yes.

For the appellant:      Mr. Raju Ram Rahi, Deputy Advocate General.

For the respondent: Mr. B.B. Vaid, Advocate.

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. (oral) This   appeal   has   been   preferred   by   the   State against   acquittal   of   respondent­Rohtash   Singh   vide judgment,   dated   31st  March,   2008,   passed   by   the   learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. VI, Shimla, H.P. in Criminal   Case   No.   165/2   of   2006   in   case   FIR   No.   265   of ::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2018 22:59:54 :::HCHP 2 2005, dated 1st October, 2005, registered under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') in Police .

Station Sadar, District Shimla.

2. Prosecution case is that on 1st  October, 2005, at about   11.00   a.m.,   respondent­Rohtash   Singh   had endangered human life and personal safety of complainant PW­1 Hemanti Devi, while driving bus bearing registration No.   HR­37­1460   in   rash   and   negligent   manner,   causing grievous hurt to the injured.

3. As   per   statement   of   PW­1   Hemanti   Devi,   Ex.

PW­1/A, recorded under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'CrPC'), on 1 st  October, 2005, at about 11.00   a.m.,   when  she   was   walking   on  her   left   side   of   the road near State Bank at Longwood, Shimla, a bus, bearing registration   No.   HR­37­1460,   being   driven   in   rash   and negligent manner by respondent­Rohtash Singh, came there whereupon she stood sticking to the railing, but the said bus crossed squeezing her abdomen between the railing and the bus   resulting   into   injuries   to   her   abdomen   and   waist.

::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2018 22:59:54 :::HCHP 3

Further,   that   she   came   to   know   that   driver   was   Rohtash Singh, s/o Jagdish Singh, whose rash and negligent act had .

caused the accident.

4. After registration of the FIR, investigation was conducted and statements of witnesses were recorded.   On finding  prima facie  complicity of respondent­Rohtash Singh Court.

r to in   commission   of   offence,   challan   was   presented   in   the

5. Prosecution   has   examined   eleven   witnesses   to prove its case.  After recording statement under Section 313 CrPC,  respondent  had  chosen not  to lead any  evidence  in defence.     On   conclusion   of   trial,   respondent   has   been acquitted by the trial Court.  Hence, the instant appeal.

6. I have heard learned Deputy Advocate General as well as learned counsel for the respondent and have also gone through the record.

7. Though,   besides   injured   PW­1   Hemanti   Devi, prosecution   has   examined   PW­2   Ishma   and   PW­6   Roshan Singh   as   spot   witnesses,   but,   PW­6   Roshan   Singh   had ::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2018 22:59:54 :::HCHP 4 completely resiled from his earlier statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC and categorically stated in Court that he .

had not witnessed the incident.   In his cross­examination, nothing   material   against   the   respondent   could   be   elicited from him.

8. PW­2   Ishma   has   admitted   his   presence   on   the spot,   but,   immediately   after   the   accident.     Though,   in examination­in­chief, he has deposed that the accident had taken   place   on   account   of   rash   and   negligent   act   of respondent, but, in cross­examination, he has stated that he could not say that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent act of the respondent or for the reason that PW­1 Hemanti Devi herself had come in front of the vehicle.   He   had   not   witnessed   the   accident,   but,   he   has stated that person on the spot were saying that rear portion of the bus had hit PW­1 Hemanti Devi.

9. PW­1   Hemanti   Devi,   in   her   statement,   has reiterated the contents of her statement Ex. PW­1/A and has also categorically identified the respondent as driver of the ::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2018 22:59:54 :::HCHP 5 offending   bus.     She   has   also   identified   the   bus   in   the photograph   which   had   caused   injuries   to   her.     In   cross­ .

examination, she has specifically stated that she had seen the driver, but, not the conductor of the bus and the driver was the accused present in the Court.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that in her statement, PW­1 Hemanti Devi has deposed that she   was   hit   by   front   portion   of   the   bus   whereas   the prosecution case is that she was squeezed between the bus and the railing, which could be possible only by the side of the bus and in case of a hit of bus from the front side, PW­1 Hemanti   Devi   would   have   received   injuries   on   her   entire body.

11. Scrutiny of the statement of PW­1 Hemanti Devi reflects that she has stated that she was squeezed by the front portion of the bus.  She has not stated that she was hit by   the   bus   from   the   front.     Her   statement   stands substantiated by the photograph where the railing and front portion of the right side of the bus are in near contact with ::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2018 22:59:54 :::HCHP 6 each   other.     Therefore,   on   the   basis   of   her   statement,   it cannot be said that she was telling a lie that she was hit by .

the front portion of the bus.

12. The   version   of   injured   PW­1   Hemanti   Devi   is also   substantiated   by   the   medical   evidence,   i.e.   MLC   Ex.

PW­5/A, wherein it was opined that the injuries found on the body of the injured were grievous in nature and could have been caused if a pedestrian was squeezed between a railing and the running vehicle.  In cross­examination also, a   positive   suggestion   has   been   put   to   PW­5   Dr.   Aman Madaik, who had medically examined PW­1 Hemanti Devi, that   it   was   correct   to   suggest   that   injuries   suffered   by patient examined by him could be caused if the accident had taken place from the side/rear portion of the bus, which was further explained by him by stating that injuries suffered by the patient were of such nature which could be caused only by slow squeezing and not by sudden hit.  Admittedly, it was not the case of prosecution that the injuries were caused by sudden hit to PW­1 Hemanti Devi but, PW­1 Hemanti Devi ::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2018 22:59:54 :::HCHP 7 had categorically stated that she was squeezed between the bus   and   the   railing.     As   per   opinion   of   the   doctor,   the .

injuries   suffered   by   the   injured   were   grievous   in   nature caused   within   two   hours   from   the   time   of   her   medical examination, which was conducted at 11.30 a.m.

13. Other   evidence   on  record   is   spot   map  Ex.   PW­

14. to 10/A and the photographs Ex. PW­9/A­1 to Ex. PW­9/A­3.

PW­10 SI Purshotam, the Investigating Officer, has   proved   the   spot   map   Ex.   PW­10/A   and   the   contents thereof   have   not   been   disputed   in   his   cross­examination.

The spot map clearly indicates that there was 24 feet wide road   on   the   spot   and   from   the   photographs,   it   is   clearly evident that the bus was on its extreme left side.  The width of a bus, in any case, cannot be more than nine feet.  From the photographs as well as the spot map, it is evident that the bus was being driven on the extreme left side of the road leaving   wide   space   on   its   right   side   despite   the   fact   that there was a pedestrian either walking or standing with the railing.

::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2018 22:59:54 :::HCHP 8

15. From the trend of cross­examination as well as the answers to the questions under Section 313 CrPC by the .

respondent,   it   is   clear   that   the   accident   has   not   been disputed.   The defence taken is that there is an ascending gradient of the road on the spot; the bus cannot be driven with high speed on that spot and, therefore, it cannot be said that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent act of the driver.  There are suggestions put to the witnesses PW­1 Hemanti Devi as well as PW­2 Ishma that the injured was   perplexed   and   she   herself   was   responsible   for   the accident.  A suggestion has been put to PW­1 Hemanti Devi that she herself had come in contact with the rear portion of the bus whereas it was suggested to PW­2 Ishma that PW­1 Hemanti   Devi   had   come   in   front   of   the   bus.     Though,   in statement under Section 313 CrPC, it has been pleaded by the respondent that he was falsely implicated in the case but there is nothing material on record to establish the said plea satisfying the touchstone of preponderance of probability, as required under law for him.     There   is   no   presumption ::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2018 22:59:54 :::HCHP 9 that every time driver would be considered guilty for hitting a pedestrian, but, for establishing fault of pedestrian, there .

must be some cogent and reliable evidence on record, which is missing in present case.

16. From perusal of the judgment passed by the trial Court,   it   appears   that   it   was   swayed   by   the   plea   of respondent that at an ascending gradient of road, the bus could not have been driven in high speed and also that the doctor   had   opined   that   the   injures   could   have   only   been caused by slow squeezing and, thus, it was held by the trial Court that as the bus could not have been driven in high speed,   there   cannot   be   rash   and   negligent   driving   on   the part of the respondent.

17. The   trial   Court   has   failed   to   consider   that   for holding a person responsible for rash and negligent act of driving,  speed may  be  a  relevant  factor,  but,  it cannot  be only decisive factor in all cases.   There may be case, where speed may not be so high but the driver, responsible to act as   a   prudent   man   while   driving   on   a   busy   road   having ::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2018 22:59:54 :::HCHP 10 pedestrian on its side, has to take due care and caution at the time of driving of the vehicle.

.

18. In present case also, the pedestrian was trying to save herself, but, the driver has failed to take requisite care in driving the vehicle in such a situation.   The pedestrian has the first right to walk on the road, especially on the side of   the   road,   particularly,   where   no   pedestrian   path   is available on the side of the road.   The accident had taken place during day time where the road as well as pedestrian was clearly visible to the driver and it is expected from a prudent driver to stop the vehicle in case it is not possible to cross the vehicle without touching or hitting the pedestrian.

It   is   also   one   of   the   purposes   for   providing   brakes   in vehicles.  From the photographs, it is also evident that there is no pedestrian path on the spot and pedestrians as well as vehicles have to move on the road.   In such circumstances, special   care   was   required   to   be   taken   by   the   respondent.

The respondent has failed to behave in a manner a prudent man is supposed to behave, which amounts to not only the ::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2018 22:59:55 :::HCHP 11 negligence   but   the   gross   negligence   on   the   part   of   the respondent as crushing of a pedestrian between the railing .

and   vehicle   may   result   into   death   of   the   pedestrian   or serious   permanent   disability   making   life   of   injured miserable.    

19. In view of above, I find that the trial Court has not   considered   the   evidence   on   record   completely   and correctly   and   has   committed   a   mistake   giving   undue weightage to the speed of the vehicle at the relevant point of time and has ignored the overwhelming evidence on record proving the guilt of the respondent for driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.

20. As   discussed   above,   prosecution,   by   leading cogent,   reliable,   trustworthy   and   confidence   inspiring evidence of injured/complainant  PW­1 Hemanti Devi, duly corroborated   with   medical   evidence   and   other   material record,   has   successfully   established   its   case   against respondent.

::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2018 22:59:55 :::HCHP 12

21. Having   said   so,   judgment   passed   by   the   trial Court acquitting the respondent is set aside and respondent .

is   held   guilty   of   commission   of   offence   punishable   under Sections   279,   337   and   338   IPC   and   hence,   convicted accordingly.

22. At this stage, it would be in the interest of justice to consider plea of learned counsel for the respondent, who has   also   argued   in   alternative   that   in   case   respondent   is found   guilty   for   committing   the   charged   offences,   then, keeping in view the fact that the respondent, who was 33 years   of   age   at   the   time   of   the   accident,   was   the   first offender;   is   not   involved   in  any   other   case   thereafter   and that   the   incident,   in  present   case,   has   taken  place   in  the year 2005 and respondent has also suffered trauma of facing criminal trial for thirteen years and further that by passage of time, social and family responsibilities of respondent have also   increased,  benefit   of   Probation   of   Offenders   Act   be extended to the respondent.

::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2018 22:59:55 :::HCHP 13

23. Considering   the   submissions   made   by   the learned counsel for the respondent and the facts of the case .

in entirety, in my opinion, instead of imposing substantive sentence after about thirteen years of the accident, it would be appropriate to consider extension of benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to respondent.  But, prior to that, I deem it proper to call for report of the concerned Probation Officer.

The respondent is permanent resident of Village Barwala, District Panchkula, Haryana.  Therefore, Probation Officer, Panchkula, Haryana is directed to submit his report under Probation of Offenders Act on or before 28th June, 2018.

24. List   on  4th  July,   2018,  on   which   date   the respondent shall remain present in the Court.

              (Vivek Singh Thakur)                  Judge May 24, 2018               ( rajni ) ::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2018 22:59:55 :::HCHP