State of Himachal Pradesh vs Mohan Lal

Sanjay Karol, J.—Assailing the judgment dated 8.4.2005, passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. in Criminal Case No. 99/2 of 2002, titled as State of H.P. vs. Mohan Lal, whereby the respondent-accused stands acquitted, the State has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is the case of prosecution that on 6.4.2002, at about 2.30 p.m. Sh. Narain Dass (deceased) was drinking water outside a dhabba near Eicher Factory, Solan, along the road side. Accused Mohan Lal who was driving vehicle i.e. canter bearing No. CH 01-K-3508 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit Sh. Narain Dass as a result of which he sustained injuries. Accused Mohan Lal fled away from the spot. The incident was witnessed by Sh. Ram Gopal (PW-1), Sh. Naseeb Singh (PW-2), Sh. Ramesh Kumar (PW-3) and Sh. Sukhdev Singh (PW-8). These persons took the injured to the hospital where he was declared dead. Police was informed. Ruka (Ext. PW 1/A) was prepared on the basis of the statement of PW-1 recorded u/s 154 Cr. P.C. The same was sent to the police station Parwanoo where F.I.R. No. 41/2002 (Ext. PA), dated 6.4.2002, was recorded by ASI Jagdish Chand (PW-5) under the provisions of Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. The matter was investigated by HC - Ved Prakash (PW-9). Post mortem on the body of the deceased Narain Dass was conducted by Dr. P.S. Rana (PW-6) who issued post mortem report (Ext. PW 6/A). With the completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court for trial.

Notice of accusation was put to the accused for having committed offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

In order to prove its case, in all, prosecution examined ten witnesses and statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was also recorded.

After trial, accused stands acquitted. Hence, the present appeal.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the considered view that in the instant case no ground for interference is made out.

My attention is invited to the testimonies of Sh. Ram Gopal (PW-1), Sh. Naseeb Singh (PW-2), Sh. Ramesh Kumar (PW-3) and Sh. Sukh Dev Singh (PW-8). Having perused the same, I am of the considered view that the trial court has correctly and completely appreciated the testimonies of these witnesses. It cannot be said that there is any perversity in appreciation of the same which has resulted into travesty of justice.

Noticeably except for PW-2, none of the witnesses have actually deposed that it was the accused who was actually driving the vehicle at the time of occurrence of the incident. Sh. Ram Gopal (PW-1) specifically states that he did not see the driver. Sh. Ramesh Kumar (PW-3) states that he did not even remember the number of the canter which had hit deceased Narain Dass. Sh. Sukh Dev Singh (PW-8) simply states that the accident occurred on account of the fact that the canter was being driven in high speed. Categorically he does not mention the speed at which the canter was being driven.

Coming to the testimony of Sh. Naseeb Singh (PW-2), I find that the same does not inspire confidence with regard to the identity of the accused. In his examination-in-chief he states that the accident occurred as the canter was being driven at a high speed. He does not state the speed at which the canter was being driven. That apart, he states that the driver had fled away from the spot and he learnt about the name of the driver Mohan Lal later on, after the documents were taken at the spot. But in his cross examination he contradicts by deposing that he had not seen accused Mohan Lal fleeing away from the spot. But in the very next breath he states that he had identified the accused on the spot. Still further he states that he had not known accused Mohan Lal from before and it was only Sh. Tarlochan Singh who had disclosed the name of accused Mohan Lal to him. Significantly Sh. Tarlochan Singh has neither been cited as a witness nor examined in Court. If the identity of the accused was disclosed by Sh. Tarlochan Singh and the accused was not known to this witness from before then how is it that he was in a position to identify the accused on the spot, as even according to him the accused had fled away from the spot. His version in Court obviously cannot be said to be trustworthy. No test identification parade was conducted in this case.

There is yet another reason why the testimony of this witness cannot be said to be inspiring in confidence. He states that Sh. Sukh Dev Singh and Sh. Ram Gopal had also seen the accused on the spot, which version is not so corroborated by them.

Thus it is seen that the prosecution has not been able to establish the identity of the accused. It cannot be said with certainty that it was the accused who was driving the vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the accident. Even the owner of the vehicle Sh. Rakesh Kumar (PW-4) has not supported the prosecution, who could not state with certainty that at the relevant time, it was the accused who was driving the vehicle in question.

Having perused the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, on record it cannot be said that prosecution has been able to prove that the accused was driving the vehicle in question in a rash and negligent manner causing death of Sh. Narain Dass, beyond reasonable doubt, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable material on record. The accused has had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Md. Ankoos and Others Vs. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., , it cannot be said that the Court below incorrectly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice. No ground for interference is called for.

As such, the present appeal is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged.