Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Jai Pal on 9 December, 1999
Equivalent citations: 2000CRILJ1577
Author: M.R. Verma
Bench: M.R. Verma
JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13-12-1994 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan whereby accused-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') has been acquitted of the accusations under Sections 279/337 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 2-9-1990 at about 6.30 a.m. Ravinder Kumar (PW 1) was coming on his scooter No. HPA-7095 front Dharampur to Solan. When he reached in front of a shop of Jagdish (PW 2) in Dharampur bazar, one Canter No. HR-04-0195 driven by the accused came from opposite side at an extremely high speed and dashed against the scooter, whereby the scooter fell on left side of the road and Ravinder Kumar sustained injuries. PW Ravinder Kumar made a statement about the occurrence under Section 154, Cr.P.C. Ex. PW-1/A to the police and on the basis of such statement, F.I.R. Ex. PW-7/A was recorded in Police Station, Dharampur and the investigation in the matter commenced. During the course of investigation scoooter and canter involved in the accident were taken in possession respectively vide memos Ex. PW-4/A and Ex. PW-4/B. The canter and the scooter were got mechanically examined and reports about such examination are respectively Ex. PW-4/A and Ex. FW-4/B. Ravinder Kumar was medically examined by Dr. Lalit Gupta (PW-10) and was X-rayed to know the nature of injuries sustained by him. The M.L.C. and X-ray report about his examination are respectively Ex. PW-10/A and Ex. PW-10/B. As per medical opinion, six injuries were found on the person of PW-1, out of which one injury was found grievous and others were simple and are opined to have been caused with a blunt weapon. Photographs of the positions of the vehicles were also taken on the spot. On completion of investigation and on being satisfied that the accused has committed offences punishable under Sections 279/337/338 of the Indian Penal Code, concerned police submitted a charge sheet against the accused who came to be tried by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan on the accusations under Sections 279/337 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. To prove accusations against the accused, prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses.
4. The accused, in his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C, though has not denied the occurrence of the accident, but has denied rash and/or negligent driving of the alleged offending vehicle by him and has claimed that PW-1 came driving the scooter in a rash manner on the wrong side of the road and dashed against the Canter being driven by him and thus, claimed to be innocent. The accused, however, did not lead any defence.
5. The learned trial Magistrate acquitted the accused of the accusations against him, hence the present appeal.
6. I have heard learned Additional Advocate General for the State and the learned counsel for the accused and have also gone through the records.
7. The learned trial Magistrate acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the accused on the wrong side of the road. Be it stated at the very outset that in the F.I.R. no witness of the occurrence, except the complainant, has been named, but at the trial, Jagdish (PW-2), Sunder Singh (PW-9) and Anita (PW-11) have been examined as eye-witnesses of the occurrence. According to PW-9 Sunder Singh and Anita (PW-11), latter was pillion rider on the scooter which is alleged to have met with an accident. Sunder Singh (PW-9) has further stated that the girl sitting on the scooter had also sustained injuries on her head and face and along with PW-1, she was also removed to the hospital. Had these facts been true, these would have been mentioned in the statement of Ravinder Kumar (PW-1) under Section 154, Cr.P.C. Ex. PW-1/A. There is no explanation whatsoever as why these material facts, which would have been known to PW-1, had not been mentioned in the First Information Report. Though PW-9 has stated that the pillion rider girl had also sustained injuries on her head and face, but this is not the case of PW-11, Anita herself, who has not stated that she had sustained any injury due to the accident or that she was also removed to the hospital. On the contrary, it is not even the case of the prosecution that she sustained injuries and was removed to the hospital. According to her she was coming on the scooter to Shimla because of the traffic jam etc. due to agitation against Mandal Report. However, PW-1 claims that he was coming on the scooter from Dharampur to Solan. Even in his statement in the Court he has not stated that PW-11, Anita was a pillion rider with him at the time of accident. Prem Singh (PW-6), who came on the spot evidently after the accident, has stated that scooter had collided with a truck. However, if he was not present on the spot, how he came to know as to how collision took place and between which vehicles, is not explained. On the contrary, he has admitted in the cross-examination that on the date of his making statement in the Court, he was advised as to the statement which he had made. Evidently the witness had been tutored to state about the occurrence which he has never witnessed.
8. Further, what emerges from the evidence on record is that Ravinder Kumar (PW-1) was driving the scooter in question which was not owned by him. The investigating agency has not cared to fake in possession any driving licence the complainant might be possessing for driving the scooter. No investigation has been carried to ascertain that Ravinder Kumar knew scooter driving and was not novice in driving the scooter. It. is stated by Anita (PW-11) that she had seen the truck coming at some distance and had told Ravinder Kumar (PW-1) that a truck was coming from opposite side. If even In this situation a collision took place and the complainant despite being fore-warned drove the scooter which met with accident, the inference that he himself was either rash or negligent in driving the scooter, can legitimately be drawn.
9. It is also admitted by some of the prosecution witnesses that accident occurred at a curve where the road was narrow, though has been subsequently widened. This factor also belies the prosecution version.
10. The learned trial Magistrate has taken into account the entire material on record and in view of the above discussion his conclusion that the accusation against the accused were not proved beyond reasonable doubts are fully justified and the impugned acquittal based on such conclusions calls for no interference by this Court.
11. As a result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.