State of H.P. vs Balbinder Singh

Kuldip Singh, J.—This appeal has been directed against Judgment dated 14.5.2003 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra in Criminal Case No. 41-1/2000, 96-II/01 acquitting the respondent for offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 IPC read with Sections 177, 184, 192A, 196 and 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The facts in brief are that Medical Officer, Sub Divisional Hospital, Dehra telephonically informed the Police Station, Dehra that two persons namely PW 1 Ranjit Singh and PW 2 Sunil sustained injuries in a vehicle accident and they were brought to the hospital for treatment. On such information, the police came into action. The statement Ex. PW 1/A u/s 154 Cr.P.C. of PW 1 Ranjit Singh was recorded and thereafter FIR Ex. PW 5/C came to be registered at Police Station, Dehra. On completion of investigation, challan was presented, notice of accusation was put to respondent for offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 IPC read with Sections 177, 184, 192A, 196 and 181 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The prosecution examined six witnesses and has also produced some documentary evidence. The statement of respondent was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. The respondent did not lead any evidence in defence, even though his case is of denial. On conclusion of trial, the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate has acquitted the respondent, hence State has come in appeal.

I have heard the learned Addl. Advocate General and have also gone through the record. Ex. PW 1/A is the statement of PW 1 Ranjit Singh u/s 154 Cr.P.C. PW 1 Ranjit Singh has stated that on 10.9.2000 he was driving the car from Palampur to Jallandhar. Sunil Gupta was also with him. A little ahead of Dhaliara, truck bearing No. PB-10-9516 came from wrong side in high speed. He stopped the car, but despite that the said truck hit the car, as a result of which he sustained injuries on his nose and Sunil Kumar on his knees and forehead. The respondent was driving the truck. In cross-examination, he has stated that he was going uphill, whereas the truck was going downhill. He has stated that in his statement Ex. PW 1/A he got recorded that he stopped his car on seeing the truck. He has stated that it was also got recorded in that statement that respondent after the accident removed the truck from the place of the accident and parked his truck on his side. He has denied that on seeing the truck he got confused and hit the truck. He has stated that the owner of the car had taken the insurance claim which would not have been given to him without FIR. He has stated that photographs were rightly taken and the vehicles were parked where the accident took place.

PW 2 Sunil Kumar has stated that Ranjit Singh was going uphill on his side in normal speed. The truck came from opposite side in high speed on wrong side. The driver tried to save but hit the car in the centre, as a result of which he sustained injuries on his both knees. In cross-examination, he has stated that when the car driver was negotiating the curve truck came from the opposite side. The truck stopped there at the place of accident. The car is owned by his brother.

PW 3 Suresh Kumar has stated that on the date of accident, he was sitting in the truck, which was being driven by the respondent. He was sleeping in the truck at the time of accident. He was declared hostile and was cross examined by the prosecutor. In cross-examination, he has denied that accident took place due to the negligence of truck driver. He has also stated that truck driver was driving the truck in normal speed.

PW 4 Paramjit Singh was the cleaner of the truck. He has stated that truck was being plied in slow speed. The accident took place due to the negligence of car driver. He was declared hostile and was cross examined by the prosecutor. In cross-examination, he denied that accident took place due to the negligence of the respondent. In the cross-examination conducted on behalf of the respondent, he has stated that on seeing the truck, the car driver got confused and could not control the car and hit the truck. The truck was parked at the place where accident took place and it was parked at that place only when the photographs were taken. He has stated that the truck driver was not negligent, accident took place due to the negligence of the car driver.

PW 5 Atul Kumar, ASI is the Investigating Officer. He has denied in the cross-examination that spot map Ex. PW 5/D has not been prepared as per the spot position. The accident took place on a deep curve, which is in the form of U-turn. PW 6 Gurdasmal was also in the truck at the time of accident. He has stated that drivers of both the vehicles were not negligent at the time of accident. He did not support the prosecution and was declared hostile and was cross-examined. The respondent in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. has pleaded his innocence.

PW 1 in his statement Ex. PW 1/A u/s 154 Cr.P.C. has nowhere stated that the position of truck was changed after the accident by the truck driver. PW 1 and PW 2 are interested witnesses, inasmuch as, PW 2 is the brother of the owner of the car. PW 1 Ranjit Singh, who was driving the car, has stated that if they would not have got registered the FIR, then the owner would not have got the insurance claim. PW 4 the cleaner of the truck has stated that accident took place due to the negligence of the car driver. PW 3 Suresh Kumar has stated that he has not seen the actual accident and when he woke up the vehicles were parked on their sides. PW 6 Gurdasmal has stated that no driver was at fault for causing the accident. The photograph Ex. P-4 indicates that truck was on its side.

It has come in the statement of PW 5 Atul Kumar ASI that at the place of accident there is a U-turn. PW 1 has made improvement in his statement, which he made in the court. In his first version Ex. PW 1/A the complainant PW 1 has not stated that the truck driver had changed the position of the truck after the accident. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after appreciation of evidence on record has taken a possible view from the evidence on record. In appeal, merely other view is possible, is no ground for converting the acquittal into conviction. It has not been established that the view taken by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate is perverse. There is no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds of the respondent are discharged.