State of Himachal Pradesh vs Kuldeep Singh

Surinder Singh, J.—Heard and gone through the record. In short, the prosecution story can be stated thus. On 30.4.1997, PW1 Bachni Devi alongwith her sister-in-law PW2 Guddi Devi and Bimla Devi (deceased) had gone to Cooperative Society Depot at Baduhi. After having purchased the provisions from the Depot, they were on their way to their village walking on foot on the public highway. It is alleged that around 3.00 pm tractor No. HP38-7803 loaded with sand and concrete crossed them. When it was uphill ahead of them, suddenly it reversed and crushed Bimla Devi and she died on the spot. Admittedly, the tractor in question was being driven by the respondent, but the prosecution alleged that he was rash and negligent in driving the said vehicle.

The matter was reported to police. On arrival of the police, PW1 Bachni Devi got recorded her statement u/s 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which culminated into FIR. Police took photographs of the place of accident and also prepared site plan. The tractor in question was taken in possession alongwith its documents vide memo Ext. PW4/A.

Autopsy of the dead body was conducted by PW6 Dr. Sanjay Mahajan. In his opinion, the multiple injuries noticed by him in the post-mortem report were because of the motor vehicular accident.

After completing Challan, it was presented before the learned trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent was charge-sheeted, tried and acquitted on the ground that the brakes of the tractor in question suddenly fail which resulted in the said accident.

The State felt aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court, as such filed the present appeal on the ground that the learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence of the prosecution in the right perspective and set unrealistic standards to evaluate the direct and cogent prosecution evidence, which caused a great prejudice.

I have reappraised the evidence on record. PW1 Bachni Devi stated that the tractor in question was being driven in a high speed when it caused accident in question. PW2 Guddi Devi also made the similar statement. PW7 Inder Dass, Mechanic, examined the tractor in question in the Police Station and issued mechanical report Ext. PW7/A. Before the learned trial Court he stated that brake was having less pressure and in his opinion, master cylinder kit of the vehicle had required maintenance, but this fact has not been mentioned by him in his report aforesaid nor he stated that he had opened and explored the condition of master cylinder kit. Even he did not say anything about the leakage of the brake-oil, therefrom.

On the critical examination of the evidence aforesaid, I find that the accident in question is attributable to the sudden failure of the brakes for which the respondent cannot be held guilty. However, when the tractor in question was uphill and according to the prosecution witnesses, it was on a high speed there was no question of its reversing. Even otherwise, the accident aforesaid is not attributable to the high speed. In fact the speed is not a criteria for holding the accused guilty for the offences charged so long the vehicle is under control of the driver. Thus, on re-examination of the evidence, I do not find any error in the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court as it borne out from the evidence on record. Hence the appeal is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed.

The respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him at any stage during the proceedings of this case. Send down the record forthwith.