Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of H.P vs Yashwant Singh on 18 November, 2016
Author: Sureshwar Thakur
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 751 of 2008.
Date of Decision: 18th November, 2016.
.
State of H.P. .....Appellant.
Versus
Yashwant Singh ....Respondents.
of
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.
rt Whether approved for reporting?
For the Appellant: Mr. Vivek Singh Attri, Dy. .A.G. For the Respondent: Mr. Anupinder Rohal, vice counsel.
_______________________________________________________ Sureshwar Thakur, Judge (Oral).
The instant appeal stands directed by the State of H.P. against the judgment of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, District Una, H.P., rendered on 29.08.2008 in Case No. 58-II-2001, whereby, he acquitted the accused/respondent herein for his allegedly committing offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the IPC.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:34:58 :::HCHP 22. The facts relevant to decide the instant case are that on 23.11.2000 Smt. Kaushalya Devi had come to Una to deliver the birthday card of her grand son to .
Smt. Tara Devi. After delivering the card, she returned to her home in a bus and alighted at bus stop, Behdla from where, she started going towards her home on foot. At about 4.00 p.m., when she was walking on the of side of the road, one car came from Mehatpur side in a high speed and hit against her as a result of which, she rt suffered injuries on her head and waist. After this accident, a large number of people had gathered on the spot and one Sh. Kuldeep Singh took her to the hospital in the same car. After receiving information about this accident, ASI Sushil Kumari, IO, P.S. Una, visited District Hospital, Una, where she recorded statement of Smt. Kushalya Devi under Section 154, Cr.P.C., in which she alleged that this accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of accused Yashwant Singh, driver of Ambassdor car No. HP-22-0099. This statement was sent to Police Station Una by ASI Sushil Kumari, on the basis of which FIR was registered. The investigation revealed that this accident had taken ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:34:58 :::HCHP 3 place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the accused.
3. On conclusion of the investigations, into the .
offences, allegedly committed by the accused, a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was prepared and filed in the competent Court.
4. The accused was charged by the learned trial of Court for his committing offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the IPC. In proof of rt the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses. On conclusion of recording of 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, returned findings of acquittal in favour of the accused/respondent herein.
6. The State of H.P. is aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court. The learned Deputy Advocate General has ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:34:58 :::HCHP 4 concertedly and vigorously contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court standing not based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on .
record, rather, theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-
appreciation of material on record. Hence, he contends qua the findings of acquittal being reversed by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and of theirs being replaced by findings of conviction.
7. On the other hand, the learned defence rt counsel has with considerable force and vigour, contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Court below standing based on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record and theirs not necessitating interference, rather theirs meriting vindication.
8. 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. Deceased Kaushalya Devi suffered demise on hers standing struck with the vehicle allegedly driven in a rash and negligent manner by the accused/respondent. The factum of her demise ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:34:58 :::HCHP 5 standing sequelled by hers standing struck with the vehicle allegedly driven in a rash and negligent manner by the accused/respondent herein stands personified in .
the postmortem report comprised in Ex.PW11/F. However, the factum qua her demise standing sequelled by hers standing struck with the vehicle driven at the relevant time by the accused would not of ipso facto fillip any inference qua thereupon the prosecution succeeding in proving the charge against rt the accused/respondent herein.
10. The prosecution for proving the charge against the accused had led into the witness box the purported eye witnesses to the occurrence. A close reading of testifications of the purported eye witnesses to the occurrence, who deposed as PW-1, PW-3 and PW-
5 omit to beget any underscorings qua theirs lending any vigour to the propagation of the prosecution qua theirs sighting the relevant occurrence which occurred at the relevant site. Consequently, the assay of the prosecution to through them prove the charge against the accused/respondent herein staggers in its entirety.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:34:58 :::HCHP 611. Be that as it may, an occupant of the car whereon the accused/ respondent herein was a driver has also omitted to lend succor to the propagation of .
the prosecution rather in his testification he has made an articulation therein qua at the relevant time at the site of occurrence the deceased attempting to cross the road without hers concerting to observe the imminent of appearance thereat of any vehicle from its either side besides he has deposed qua on arrival of the deceased rt at the relevant site of occurrence, the accused/respondent by applying brakes though begetting the sequel of the relevant vehicle halting yet the deceased striking against the relevant vehicle whereupon she suffered fatal injuries. The aforesaid testification of PW-7 besides other purported eye witnesses to the occurrence remain unshred of their efficacy. In aftermath, the communications made by them in their respective testifications acquire sanctity.
12. Furthermore, a perusal of site plan Ex.PW11/A, unveils the trite factum of the relevant collision occurring on the pacca portion of the road, factum whereof stands magnifyingly highlighted by ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:34:58 :::HCHP 7 presence of blood thereon besides skid marks of the relevant vehicle. The factum of disclosure in Ex./PW11/A of skid marks on the pacca portion of the .
road PW11/A also begets an inference qua the testification of PW-7 wherein he has echoed qua the accused/respondent on sighting the deceased, his efficaciously applying the brakes of the relevant vehicle of hence acquiring an entrenched hue of veracity.
13. The upshot of the above discussion is qua the rt accused/respondent herein while driving the relevant vehicle not omitting to adhere to the standards of due care and caution rather the deceased arriving abruptly at the site of occurrence dehors hers concerting to stand enlightened qua the road at the relevant time facilitating hers crossing from its one end to the other.
14. 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 the learned trial Court does not suffer from any perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non appreciation of ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:34:58 :::HCHP 8 evidence on record, rather it has aptly appreciated the material available on record.
15. Consequently, there is no merit in the instant .
appeal which is accordingly dismissed and the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court in favour of the accused/respondent herein is affirmed and maintained. Records be sent back of forthwith.
18 th rt November, 2016 (Sureshwar Thakur) Judge.
(jai) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:34:58 :::HCHP