State of Himachal Pradesh vs Ranbir Singh

Dev Darshan Sud, J.—The State challenges the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitting the respondent for offences under Sections 279 of the Indian Penal Code and 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The case of the prosecution is that on 1.4.2004 at about 10.45 p.m., the accused was driving his Maruti Van bearing No. HP-08-A-0104 on the Mall Road near Mall View Restaurant, Nahan. The case proceeds that the vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner which resulted in collusion with another Maruti Van No. HP-14-7776 which was coming from the opposite side. On this information, PW5 H.C. Om Parkash, Police Post, Gunughat went to the spot and recorded the statement of PW2 Jakir Hussain on the basis of which F.I.R. Ext.PW5/A was recorded and investigation followed thereafter. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined five witnesses in all. After consideration of the evidence, the learned trial Court finds that the essential ingredients of the offences of which the respondent has been charged were not proved.

Learned Advocate General urges that the learned trial Court was wrong in assessing the evidence of the prosecution and that on the facts as proved on the record, there could be no other conclusion save and except that the accused was guilty of the offences as charged. He refers to the evidence of PW1 Arvind Kumar and PW2 Jakir Hussain complainant, who corroborated the facts stated in the First Information Report (F.I.R.)that because of the fault of the accused, the accident occurred as he (accused) was under the influence of alcohol at the time when the accident occurred. PW1 Arvind Kumar denied that the Maruti Van was being driven at a fast speed and that the vehicle was taken to the wrong side of the road. PW5 H.C. Om Parkash, Investigating Officer proves the site of the accident.

PW3 Dr. D.D. Sharma examined the accused and issued M.L.C. Ext.PW3/A stating therein that the accused was brought to him at around 12.20 a.m but he was not intoxicated. In his evidence, he states that the accused was alcoholic but was not intoxicated. In cross-examination, he admits that in medicines for digestive disorders, such as carbonate mixture also contain alcohol. He states that if somebody has consumed this mixture then the smell of alcohol would emanate from that person. It was possible that the accused had consumed this mixture. PW4 H.C. Amar Singh has mechanically examined both the vehicles involved in the accident and proved on record reports Ext.PW4/A and Ext.PW4/B but this examination was not carried out by him on the spot. The learned trial Court holds that the defence of the accused was probalised on the evidence on record. In this view of the matter, the learned trial Court on a conspectus of the entire evidence acquitted the accused. After re-appreciating the entire evidence, which I have considered above, I cannot come to a different view. I do not find that the accused can be held guilty of rash and negligent driving, as charged. The evidence on record either of the complainant PW2 Jakir Hussain or that PW4 H.C. Amar Singh does not support the prosecution case. The attempt made to hold that the accused has caused accident because he was under the influence of alcohol was also not established on the record as PW3 Dr. D.D. Sharma admits that though there was smell of alcohol and described the accused as alcoholic but he was not intoxicated. There is, thus, no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the respondent are discharged.