Sat Kartar Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Accused Sat

Kartar Singh","S. 279, IPC",Convicted,"Sentence of imprisonment for three months and

fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of

fine, further simple imprisonment for 15 days

,"S. 307, IPC",Acquitted,

,"S.337, IPC",Convicted,"Sentence of imprisonment for three months and

fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine,

further simple imprisonment for 7 days

However, there is no evidence that the State has challenged the acquittal of the accused under Section 307 IPC. Even at this stage, the only appeal",,,

listed before this Court is an appeal filed by the convict seeking acquittal. Mr. Ram Lal Thakur, learned Assistant Advocate General appearing for the",,,

State submits that he has no information about any such appeal filed by the State. If such appeal was filed by the State then the same must have been,,,

attached alongwith this file. As such, this court would proceed further with the assumption that no appeal was preferred by the State.",,,

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.,,,

The allegations levelled by the complainant, i.e. Madan Lal (PW-1) were that when the truck driver was signaled to stop the truck then instead of",,,

haulting, he broke the rope and fled away. In the statement u/s 154, Cr.PC (PW1/A), he specifically stated that in the process of breaking the rope,",,,

Chamel Singh sustained injuries. While appearing as PW/1 Madan Lal testified that he was working at Marwari Toll Tax Barrier whose contractor,,,

was his brother Pawan Kumar.,,,

Similarly PW-4 Sukh Lal, who was posted as Peon at the Excise Barrier, Marwari also stated that a truck came from Talwara side in a very high",,,

speed and when he gave signal to the driver to stop the truck, then he did not stop at the barrier and broke the rope and fled away. He has also stated",,,

that Chamel Singh sustained injuries as he was pulling the rope and thereafter, Madan Lal followed the truck on motorcycle.",,,

Further case of the prosecution is that while absconding, the truck driver tried to run over the chasing party. The prosecution further led the evidence",,,

that initially they chased the truck on a motorcycle and after chasing the truck Madan Lal reported the matter to Police Post Daulatpur from where,,,

PW/14 ASI Ashok Kumar after arranging one Tata Sumo of Deepak Prashar PW-11 started chasing the truck. While chasing the said truck, the",,,

truck driver tried to overtake them and while doing so, he even hit the Tata Sumo with his truck also. However, the investigator did not get the Tata",,,

Sumo inspect from a motor mechanic to point out the dents received when the truck allegedly hit it. Furthermore, the learned Trial Court did not find",,,

evidence, qua the truck driver trying to run over the Tata Sumo and motorcycle, as convincing and also held that the allegations were not sufficient to",,,

make out a case for commission of offence punishable under Section 307, IPC and acquitted the accused. Thus the only charges which remain to be",,,

discussed and analyzed are for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337, IPC.",,,

The evidence qua Section 337 IPC has come in the testimony of PW-4 Sukh Lal, which was corroborated by PW-1 Madan Lal. They stated that",,,

when the truck was coming from Talwara side then the truck driver signaled the driver to stop the truck and simultaneously Chamel Singh pulled the,,,

rope. However, the truck driver did not stop and drove through the rope. In the statement under Section 154, Cr.PC Ext.PW1/A, Madan Lal",,,

specifically stated that the rope was broken. During investigation, the investigator recovered the broken rope vide Ext.PW1/D. The breaking of rope",,,

would imply that the impact of the truck hitting the rope was so strong that it broke the plastic rope which was held by Chamel Singh. PW/4,,,

specifically stated that when the truck hit the rope, Chamel Singh fell down and he sustained injuries due to such fall. PW/1 Madan Lal also",,,

corroborated in his testimony that the person who was holding the rope sustained minor injuries. After that, Chamel Singh was taken to doctor PW/8",,,

Ashish Lakhi, who conducted his medical examination. In his cross- examination, doctor admitted to be correct that if a person is holding a rope in his",,,

hand tightly and rope is full with force in the opposite direction, then hand will receive abrasions. The doctor also admitted to be correct that except",,,

complaint of pain in shoulder, there was no other injury. During the pendency of the trial, injured Chamel Singh died to reasons unrelated to the present",,,

case. Order dated 21.4.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Una reflects his death. Thus, the only relevant evidence",,,

to corroborate the injuries sustained by Chamel Singh is of the expert, i.e., doctor Ashish Lakhi, PW/8. Apart from the statement of the doctor",,,

wherein he admitted that in case a person was holding the rope and the impact was huge then the person holding rope would also receive abrasions on,,,

his hands, this is a common understanding that when the impact is so huge that it breaks the rope then it is obvious that abrasion would be caused due",,,

to friction of the rope in the hands. The absence of such abrasion does not support the story of the prosecution about the truck being fled away after,,,

breaking the rope.,,,

Once the very foundation, on which Madan Lal PW-1, ASI Ashok Kumar PW-14 and Deepak Prashar PW-11 and other persons chased the truck, is",,,

held to be not credible then what were the reasons of such chase also become very suspicious. As per the prosecution’s own case, 15 to 20",,,

persons were sitting in the truck. DW-1 Nirmala Devi also testified that she was one such passenger. When the police intercepted the truck, they did",,,

not find any violation of Excise Act. Thus the reason for which the truck driver being fled away also becomes without any motive. The law is very,,,

well settled that the burden to prove the allegations remains on the prosecution and such burden never shifts. In this case, this Court has reasons to",,,

believe that the story of breaking the rope is not at all credible and rather belied because of the statement of doctor PW/8 Ashish Lakhi and as such it,,,

will be highly unsafe to believe the other remaining versions of the prosecution.,,,

It has also come in the evidence that except Chamel Singh who had only complained about pain in his shoulder region, none else received any injury.",,,

Given above, the evidence led by the prosecution is not credible. Consequently, there is no legally admissible evidence to uphold the conviction of the",,,

accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337, IPC.",,,

The evidence required to bring the offences within the ambit of Sections 279 and 337, IPC is not established by the prosecution. The ingredients of",,,

these offences are missing. A perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court reveals that there is no discussion on the credibility,,,

of the story of prosecution about the absence of abrasions due to rope and that if the truck was driven in a rash and negligent manner then why 15 to,,,

20 passengers, who were sitting in the truck, did not receive any injury. There is also no discussion that if the driving was rash and negligent then why",,,

Nirmala Devi, DW/1 was not cross-examined by the prosecution to that effect.",,,

Hence, for all the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is accordingly allowed and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional",,,

Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Una is set aside and the convict is acquitted of the charged offences. Bail bonds are discharged. Accused shall be",,,

entitled to refund of fine, if deposited by him, when he files such application in the concerned court. All pending applications, if any, are also closed.",,,