State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Ranjit Kumar

Anoop Chitkara, J

This petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court passed the following:

FIR NUMBER

234 of 2007, dated 22.11.2007, registered at Police Station, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., under Section 279, 336, 427 IPC.

Trial Court Case Number

72-II/2008, Decided on 8.1.2010 by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.1, Dharamshala whereby the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused.

Challenging the dismissal of prosecution of the respondent for rash and negligent driving on a public way, the State has come up before this Court by way of filing the above captioned appeal.

On 22.11.2007, the police officials received information about the road accident. After that the investigator reached at the spot of accident. The complainant Veena Sharma, who was a BDC Member, informed the investigator that she was driving her Santro Car. She was going towards Palampur to get her car serviced. Apart from her, her relatives namely Manju Lata and her nephew Pankaj were also sitting in the car. At 3.30 p.m., when they reached near 'Iqu Moud', then a Tata truck was being driven in a high speed and it deviated from its side and entered into the lane where she was driving her Santro. After that the driver could not control the truck and hit the Santro Car. The driver did not even attempt to apply breaks and stopped the truck at a distance of 30-40 meters from the spot. Due to such impact, although they did not suffer any injury, but substantive damage was caused to the car. The investigator recorded this information vide memo Ex.PW-1/A. The investigator sent rukka to the police station for registration of FIR. Consequently, FIR Ex.PW-5/B was registered in the aforesaid police station.

At the spot, the investigator prepared the site plan Ex.PW-5/D and took documents of the truck into possession. The investigator also obtained mechanical report of the truck as per the said report Ex.PW-1/A, the mechanic did not notice any mechanical defect in the truck. After completion of the investigation the officer incharge of the police station launched prosecution by filing report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

Vide order dated 19.8.2008, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class put notice of accusation to the accused for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 336 IPC, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. During the trial, the prosecution examined the driver of the Santro Car as PW-2, the co-occupant of the vehicle Pankaj as PW-3 and other formal witnesses.

The accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., although denied the accident but admitted that the police has taken into possession his vehicle along with its documents.

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

PW-2 Veena Sharma, who was driving the Santro car testified that at that time she was BDC Member. She reiterated her statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C., Ex.PW-PW5/A. In her cross-examination, she feigned ignorance whether her car was mechanically examined or not. However, she admitted that police did not check her car for mechanical defect. She admitted that the truck had hit the rear portion of her car. She denied the suggestion that because she could not negotiate the turn as such because of her fault the accident took place.

The prosecution also examined co-occupant of the car Pankaj as PW-3. He stated that at the time of occurrence, he was accompanying Veena Sharma, who was taking her car for service to Palampur. He stated that they were on their side and in the meantime, one truck came in a high speed and hit the car. He further stated that the accident had taken place because of the rashness and carelessness of the truck driver. In his cross-examination, he was confronted with his previous statement wherein it was not mentioned that the truck was being driven in its wrong side. In his cross-examination, he explicitly stated that he could not tell the speed of the truck, but it was driven in a high speed. He also admitted that when the accident took place, by that time the front portion of the truck had already crossed the car.

An analysis of the aforesaid statements reveals that even if the entire statements of PW-2 and PW-3, are taken on its face value, still the prosecution did not lead any evidence to prove that how the truck driver was driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner. The witnesses even could not tell the speed of the truck. The prosecution did not lead any evidence to establish as to what was the maximum speed prescribed at that stretch of the road. No doubt, the car of the complainant was partially damaged in the accident but the prosecution did not adduce any evidence to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the accused. The possibility of the accident having taken place due to error of judgment, cannot be ruled out.

Consequently, the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not sufficient to arrive at a conclusion of guilt and is not sufficient to convict the accused. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

I have also gone through the impugned judgment, which is well reasoned and calls for no interference by this Court.

In the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the appeal filed by the State is dismissed being devoid of merit. Bail bonds are cancelled and discharged. Pending application(s), if any, also stand closed.