Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Shri Harbans Singh on 27 August, 2021
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 27 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.314 of 2010
Between:-
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
.....APPELLANT
(BY SH. NAND LAL THAKUR,
ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE
GENERAL, WITH SH.RAM LAL
THAKUR AND SH. SUNNY
DHATWALIA, ASSISTANT
ADVOCATES GENERAL)
AND
RAJINDER SINGH, SON OF
SHRI HARBANS SINGH,
RESIDENT OF SOUDI,
POST OFFICE PANJHERA,
TEHSIL AND P.S. NALAGARH,
DISTRICT SOLAN, H.P.
....RESPONDENT
(MS MEGHA KAPOOR GAUTAM,
ADVOCATE)
RESERVED ON: 26.08.2021
DECIDED ON: 27.08.2021
_________________________________________________
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:58:00 :::CIS
2
This appeal coming on for hearing before this day, the Court
passed the following:
JUDGMENT
.
FIR Number 244/04, dated 17.11.2004 under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC, Police Station, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. Criminal Case Decided on 18.2.2010 by JMFC, Nalagarh, No.86/2 of 2005 District Solan, H.P. Challenging the acquittal, State came up before this Court by filing the above captioned criminal appeal.
2. Based upon the statement of Investigator (PW-5), the case of the prosecution is that on 17.11.2004, the aforesaid Police Station received telephonic information about the death of a girl in road accident by a truck. Such information was reduced into writing vide memo (Ex.PW1/A) and the Investigator reached at the spot.
3. The Investigator recorded the statement of Ramesh Kumar (PW-1) under Section 154 Cr.PC (Ex.PW1/A). The complainant stated that on 17.11.2004, the complainant was Panch of Gram Panchayat, Khera. He stated that a meeting of the Panchayat was scheduled to be held on 17.11.2004 at 1:45 p.m., day time. He was standing outside Surinder Paan House and was waiting for the Secretary. At that time, one truck bearing registration No.HP12-3265 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:58:00 :::CIS 3 was coming from the side of Nalagarh towards Pinjore. In the meanwhile, a girl in school uniform was crossing the road from the side of school ground. The said truck was in a very high speed and .
crushed the girl from its front tyre. The girl died on the spot. After the accident, the driver of the truck parked his vehicle around 80 feet ahead on the roadside. The complainant alleged that the accident had taken place due to high speed, carelessness, and casual driving of the truck driver.
4. The Investigator got postmortem examination of the corpus conducted vide inquest report (Ex.PW5/D). As per report of the postmortem (Ex.PW5/E), the cause of the death was road accident.
5. The Investigator prepared the spot map (Ex.PW5/B), seized the truck alongwith its documents, took photographs, and carried on the investigation. After completion of the investigation, the Officer-
in-Charge of the Police Station launched prosecution and filed the report under Section 173 Cr.PC.
6. Vide order dated 10.4.2007, learned JMFC, Nalagarh, District Solan, issued notice of accusation against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. The accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:58:00 :::CIS 47. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses including the Investigator. The prosecution examined complainant, Ramesh Kumar as PW-1, PW-2 Dharam Pal as spot .
witness, PW-3 Rajinder Singh, Mechanic, PW-4 Bhag Singh, spot witness, PW-5 Investigator Asha Ram, PW-6 Karam Chand as another spot witness and PW-7 as a formal witness.
8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused in his statement recorded under Sections 313 of CrPC, denied all the circumstances, and claimed innocence.
9. Vide judgment captioned above, the Trial Court dismissed the prosecution's case and acquitted the accused of all the acquisitions.
10. Challenging the acquittal, State has come up before this Court by filing the present appeal.
11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Ram Lal Thakur, Ld. Assistant Advocate General, argued that neither the learned Trial Court appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective nor adequately applied the law. He has also referred to Paragraphs-6 and 7 of the grounds of appeal. Thus, the Judgment needs to be overturned, and the accused must be convicted.
12. Ms. Megha Kapoor Gautam, learned counsel for the accused contended that the judgment is well reasoned and calls for no ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:58:00 :::CIS 5 interference. She argued that there is no evidence either to prove the rash and negligent driving of the accused or to connect the accused with such offence.
.
ANALYSIS AND REASONS
13. The FIR was registered based on the statement of Ramesh Kumar recorded under Section 154 Cr.PC (Ex.PW1/A). Ramesh Kumar testified as PW-1 and re-iterated the allegations. In cross-
examination, PW-1 stated that around 100-150 people were present on the spot at the time of accident. In cross-examination, he denied that to get claim from Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal, he had concocted a false story and in fact he was not present on the spot.
14. PW-4 Bhag Singh is another spot witness. He stated in his examination-in-chief that the girl was crossing the road from the side of her school.
15. The prosecution also examined PW-6 Karam Chand as a spot witness. However, he did not support the case of prosecution.
On being declared hostile, he stated that the accident had not taken place in his presence.
16. PW-2, father of the deceased, Shri Dharam Pal testified that on 17.11.2004, he was not present on the spot. However, he stated in his examination-in-chief that at the time of accident, school had half ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:58:00 :::CIS 6 time and his daughter had gone out of the school to purchase something. He stated that his daughter at that time was studying in 4th standard.
.
17. An analysis of the above evidence establishes that the time of accident was 1:45 p.m. This fact is mentioned in the statement of Ramesh Kumar (Ex.PW1/A), recorded under Section 154 Cr.PC. The Daily Diary entry was based upon the telephonic information which was received at 2:05 p.m. as is reflected in Rapat (Ex.PW7/A). Thus, the statement of the father of deceased, PW-2 Dharam Pal that the accident had taken place during half time of the school has corroboration from the aforesaid document as well as statement of PW-1 Ramesh Kumar. The primary evidence has come in the statement of PW-1 Ramesh Kumar, spot witness who stated in his examination-in-chief that the girl was crossing the road. It has also come on record in the statement of father of the deceased that she was studying in 4th standard. As per the postmortem report (Ex.PW5/E), the age of the victim was mentioned as 10 years. It is undisputed that the spot of accident is a national highway. As per statement of PW-4, the accident had taken place almost on the middle of the road. PW-1 Ramesh Kumar admitted in his cross-examination that the road was ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:58:00 :::CIS 7 national highway and was a busy road. Even at the time of accident, vehicles were being plied on the said road.
18. A minute analysis of the entire incident reveals that the girl .
was unattended by any teacher and was allowed to cross the National Highway on her own. The vehicles on the National Highways are driven at a considerable speed. It is not the case of the prosecution that the truck in question was driven in the speed beyond the prescribed limit at that stretch of road. Thus, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the girl, who was crossing the road to buy something, as has been stated by her father, got crushed from the truck being plied on the National Highway which is usually a high speed road. Thus, the entire evidence brought on the road fails to prove that the accident had taken place due to rash or negligent driving of the accused. It has come on record that he was driving on National Highway and the girl was crossing the road unattended. None of the prosecution witnesses mentioned even the tentative speed of the truck. Thus, there is no evidence that what was the approximate speed of the truck at the time of accident.
19. The prosecution did not lead any evidence to prove that on the National Highways near the school any traffic sign depicting the existence of school was installed or not. There is not even any ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:58:00 :::CIS 8 evidence that near the school any speed breaker was installed on the National Highway to control the speed. Furthermore, there is no evidence that at any point of time, speed of the vehicles had been .
reduced because of the school.
20. This Court cannot refrain itself by observing that when the authorities let the school open on the shoulders of National Highways and the schools let the children come on the road without guardians, then accidents are bound to happen putting the innocent children's life at stake. r
21. I have gone through the judgment of the trial Court which is well reasoned. In the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the appeal filed by the State is dismissed. Bail bonds are discharged.
(Anoop Chitkara), Judge August, 2021 (ks) ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:58:00 :::CIS