State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Surinder Singh

FIR Number,"23 of 2000 dated 28.2.2000, under Sections 279, 304A of IPC and 184 of M.V.

Act, registered at Police Station, Haripur, District Kangra, H.P.

Cr. Appeal RBT No.,"22-G/05/04, decided on 26.11.2009 by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track

Court, Kangra at Dharamsala, H.P.

Cr. Case No,"111-II/2000, decided on 18.6.2004 by JMFC (1), Dehra, District Kangra, (HP).

General, further drew attention of this Court to the photographs (Ex.P-1 to P-9) to show that the road was straight and, as such, it was the driver who",

was at fault.,

To the contrary, Mr. Divya Raj Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-accused, has drawn attention of this Court to the statement of spot",

witness, Ashwani Kumar (PW-1), who specifically stated that the child was crossing the road by running because the school bell was going to ring.",

ANALYSIS AND REASONING,

In an unfortunate accident, a small child was crushed by a truck. The primary reason for the accident is that the school was absolutely on the edge",

of the road. A perusal of photograph (Ex.P-9) shows that the body of the child is not on the side of the road, but somewhere on the middle of the road",

itself.,

A perusal of site plan (Ex.PW9/A) also mentions the body of the child to be on around 3-4th portion of the road i.e. there was a space of 4 feet,

towards north and 20 feet towards other side of the road with a width of 24 feet. Furthermore, from the middle portion of the road, there was a",

Kachaa road of 4 feet and adjacent to that there was the gate of Primary School. The site plan also mentions skid marks of the truck. Thus, the stand",

of the accused taken in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC that the child was crossing the road by running is probabalized.,

The earlier report (Ex.PW4/A), was registered on the basis of statement of Bal Krishan (PW-4) recorded under Section 154 Cr.PC. In the",

statement, Bal Krishan specifically stated that at 1:30 p.m., he was standing at the shop of Ashwani Kumar.",

The shopkeeper Ashwani Kumar testified as PW-1 and he specifically admitted the suggestion of the defence that the child was crossing the road,

by running because the bell of the school was going to ring. The time of incident is 1:30 p.m., which probabalise that the recess would be over after",

half an hour break.,

The statement of Roshan Lal (PW-2) that the child was on the side of the road is contradicted by the site plan and the photographs.,

The informant Bal Krishan (PW-4), stated in his cross-examination that the recess was going to be over and children were going towards the",

school. He also admitted it to be correct that since the recess time was going to be over, as such, children were in a hurry to reach the school and",

were running. He stated that the child who had died in the accident had crossed the road towards the school at that time. However, this portion of the",

statement is contradicted by the site plan and the photographs of the spot.,

Sadarshan Kumar (PW-5) admitted in his cross-examination that the child had crossed the road by running and there were some more children,

with this child. He also admitted that the children were running to cross the road.,

Som Dutt (PW-7) did not support the case of the prosecution and stated that the tempo was not at a very high speed. Thus, two sets of evidence",

have come up on the record in this case. One set of evidence, which is in the form of statement of PW-1 Ashwani Kumar, site plan (Ex.PW9/A) and",

photographs of the road, points out that the child was crushed when he was on the road. The other set of evidence is that the child had crossed the",

road. The set of evidence in favour of the accused cannot be ruled out because the time of accident was 1:30 p.m., when the recess was going to be",

over. It is consistent stand of all the witnesses that the children were running towards the school because the time of the recess was going to be over,

and the school bell was going to ring. This probabalises the explanations of the accused given in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC that,

all of sudden the child crossed the road and despite his best efforts he could not save him.,

Given this evidence, it is very difficult to say that it was the accused, who was negligent. However, be that as it may, when schools are opened on",

the side of the road and during recess time, the schools permit the children to cross the roads, then such accidents are likely to take place.",

Given above discussions, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond its reasonable doubts.",

I have gone through the judgment of conviction passed by learned trial Court, which is not legally sustainable. I have also gone through the",

judgment of acquittal passed by learned Sessions Judge which is reasonable and does not call for any interference by this Court.,

Accordingly, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, are also closed.",