Harnam Singh vs State of H.P.

Surinder Singh, J.—The petitioner faced the trial in Criminal case No. 24-11/2001, under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code arising out from FIR No. 21 of 2001 dated 22.01.2001, registered at Police Station, Shahpur, District Kangra, H.P. he was convicted for the above offences and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- u/s 279 of the Indian Penal Code and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offences punishable u/s 304-A of the Indian Penal Code.

Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?

The petitioner fell aggrieved by his conviction and sentence filed this appeal No. 28-D/X-2001, which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge and now the petitioner has assailed the Judgment of conviction and sentence in this the Revision Petition on the grounds that the petitioner did not hit the scooter with his truck nor he was driving the truck in rash and negligent manner and the learned Courts below committed grave mistake in law and facts in relying upon the most inconsistent, incredible and untrustworthy evidence produced by the prosecution.

Shri Sanjay Dutt Vasudeva with vehemence argued that the truck of the petitioner did not came into contact either with the scooterist or his scooter thereby causing the accident. Further he took me through the evidence on record and ventilated that rash and negligent act of the driving by the petitioner was not proved by the prosecution in accordance with law. Therefore, the Judgment of conviction and sentence, passed by the learned trial Court and affirmed in appeal deserves to be set aside.

Contra, Shri J.S. Guleria, learned Assistant Advocate General supported the impugned judgment and argued that the conviction and sentence of the petitioner is based upon the proper appreciation of evidence.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and have carefully examined the record.

In brief, the prosecution case is that on 22.1.2001, at about 5.10 P.M., PW-2, Kuldeep Singh a Timber Watcher was standing on the road near the Forest Depot. In the meanwhile, Sudershan Kapoor, Deputy Ranger, Dharamshala came on his scooter. He called him on the side of the road in connection with some official work, when they were engaged in conversing, a Mini Truck (609) bearing No. HP-39-2927 came in a high speed from Pathankot side on the National Highway and left his own side and struck, against the scooter over which Sudershan Kapoor was sitting, on the wrong side of the road with the result Sudershan Kapoor alongwith his scooter fell down on the road and sustained serious injuries on his body. The petitioner fled away from the spot leaving his truck 40 meters ahead on its left side. Immediately, the injured was removed to CHC, Shahpur for treatment, but he died on the way.

The matter was reported to the police by PW-2 Kuldeep Singh. He alleged that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck by the petitioner, on the basis of his statement an FIR was registered under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code.

The postmortem of the dead body was conducted by PW-4 Dr. Mohan Singh. PW-13 Head Constable Madan Lal investigated the case. He inspected the spot and prepared Site Plan Ex. PW 13/B.

The truck in question was taken into possession alongwith its documents vide Memo. Ext.PW-1/A and Ext. PW-3/A, respectively. The police took the photographs of both the vehicles and after recording the statements of the witnesses and on completion of investigation police presented the challan in the Court.

The petitioner was charge-sheeted. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

To prove its case, the prosecution examined its witnesses. The respondent was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. He admitted that at the relevant time he was driving the said truck but denied the accident. After taking into consideration all the incriminating material by the Courts below, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced under the aforesaid Sections.

In the instant case, PW-2 Kuldeep Singh, Timber Watcher is an important witness. He was present on the spot and witnessed the accident. While supporting his statement Ex. PW-2/A given at the time of lodging FIR he categorically stated that Mini Truck came from Pathankot side in a high speed and hit the scooter which was stationary, with the result the scooter of Sudershan Kapoor fell on the road and Sudershan Kapoor sustained grievous injuries and while taking him to Hospital, he died on the way. He has also stated that the accident had taken place on account of negligence of the truck driver to whom he could not identify, whereas PW-11, Uma Kant, the owner of the truck has stated that the petitioner was the driver of the truck in question at the relevant time, who had taken the truck to bring the load of bricks from ''Raja-Ka-Talab'' and he came to know on the next day that the truck had caused the accident with the scooter. In his presence truck and its documents were taken into possession alongwith the driving licence of the petitioner vide memo Ex. PW-1/A.

Significantly, the petitioner when examined u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in answer to question No. 2, admitted that he was driving the said truck in the evening of 22.01.2001 at about 5.10. P.M. According to him, the scooter did not strike against his truck and he was not negligent in driving the said truck.

Considering the statement of PW-2, it is apparent that it was the truck in question which had hit the scooter on the wrong side of the road and this fact has fully been established by the Site Plan Ex. 13/B, prepared by the Investigating Officer, wherein, he observed that after hitting the scooter on the wrong side of the road, it went to its own side 40 meters ahead. The width of road at the site is shown to be 13.5 meters. The accident in question stands clearly proved and it is also proved that because of the said accident Sudershan Kapoor, Deputy Ranger, had died. Thus, the learned Sessions Judge rightly observed that the accident had taken place on account of negligence and rashness on the part of the truck driver i.e. the petitioner. The accused-petitioner failed to explain due care and caution to avert the accident. The defence taken could not be probablised.

In the above circumstances, I do not find any illegality and impropriety in the judgments of conviction and sentence, passed by the learned Courts below this Revision petition is accordingly dismissed.

The petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned trial Court within one month from today to serve the sentence, failing which the learned trial Court shall take necessary and appropriate steps to execute the sentence. The petition stands disposed of.