State of H.P. vs Jagdish Chand

V.K. Ahuja, J.—This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. against the judgment of the Court of learned JMIC, Nahan dated 29.7.2004, vide which the Respondent was acquitted of notice of accusation put up to him for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 19.9.2002, the complainant was coming in Tata Sumo No. HP-12A-0984 alongwith 8-9 persons and at about 1.00 pm a Gypsy coming from other side bearing No. HP-18-1915 struck with the Tata Sumo and as a result of which the Tata sumo overturned and 4-5 persons sitting in the Gypsy suffered injuries. On this, a report was lodged by the occupant of Tata-Sumo namely, Bhagat Ram and a case was registered against the driver of the Gypsy and after the investigation, the challan was filed before the learned trail Court who tried the Respondent for the offences punishable under the aforementioned Sections leading to his acquittal.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.

On perusal of the evidence led by the prosecution, it is clear that the prosecution had examined eight witnesses. The statements of five witnesses are formal in nature including that of the Investigating Officer. The most material witnesses are the complainant PW-1 Bhagat Ram, PW-2 Ramesh Kumar, occupant of the Tata-sumo and the driver of the said vehicle, and PW-3 Dr. S.K. Sablok one of the injured, who was going in the Gypsy being driven by the accused.

Coming to the testimony of PW-1 Bhagat Ram complainant, he has clearly stated that the Gypsy was coming at a normal speed. He has stated that the driver of the vehicle had stopped the vehicle on seeing the vehicle coming from other side but the Gypsy struck with their vehicle and overturned. In further examination he only stated that the accident took place due to the negligence of the driver of the Gypsy. He did not state about the speed of the vehicle at the relevant time. He also did not state that the Gypsy had struck with their vehicle on the wrong side as stated by the driver of the Gypsy, namely, PW-2 Ramesh Kumar. He has also not attributed the cause of accident. Moreover, he is also the cousin brother of the driver of the other vehicle, namely, Ramesh Kumar. In all probability, he would have supported the statement of driver of the vehicle, namely, PW-2 Ramesh Kumar but he has not attributed any negligence especially to the driver of the vehicle, namely, the accused. In cross-examination, he has stated that he was sitting on the back seat of the driver and therefore, had an opportunity to see the accident. He also admitted that at the place of accident there is a curve and it is difficult for two vehicles to cross at that place. He also stated that where the accident took place the road was in bad condition having pits. He further stated in cross-examination that the speed of the vehicle was alright. He did not deny the suggestion that at the relevant time some cattle came from other side and while saving them the accident took place. This clearly shows that he has not denied the suggestion specifically but denied his knowledge in this regard. In further cross-examination he denied that the accused was not negligent.

PW-2 Ramesh Kumar is the driver of the other vehicle, namely, Tata-sumo which had met with an accident. He stated that the vehicle came at a fast speed and struck with their vehicle on the wrong side which was not stated by PW-1 Bhagat Ram complainant. He stated that the Gypsy overturned and he had parked his vehicle on the left of his side. He, however, admitted that none of the occupants of his vehicle had suffered injuries at the relevant time. He stated that the accident had taken place due to fast speed of the driver of the other vehicle, which was not so specifically stated by PW-1 Bhagat Ram, complainant. He denied the suggestion that some cattle were crossing and to save them this accident took place. He also admitted that there was a curve at some distance from the place of accident. He denied that he has deposed falsely to save himself.

The statements of both these witnesses do not establish the cause of accident, manner of accident or the negligence of the Respondent, which could have easily been stated by PW-2 Ramesh Kumar who was himself a driver. PW-3 is Dr. S.K. Sablok, who was one of the occupants in the Gypsy and suffered injuries in the said accident. He stated that suddenly the driver of the Gypsy lost control of the vehicle and struck with the Sumo and overturned. He clearly stated that he does not know as to by whose negligence the accident took place. Thus, his statement did not substantiate the case of the prosecution in any manner. He also denied the suggestion that he cannot say as to by whose negligence the accident had taken place.

From the above discussion of the evidence, it is clear that the statements of three eye witnesses examined in the case did not establish the rash or negligent driving on the part of the Respondent. It has also been observed that the Investigating Officer did not associate the other injured and occupants of the Gypsy who had suffered injures also at the relevant time. Two of them were given up by the prosecution, namely, P Ws Dharam Dutta and Jagat Ram being repetitive in nature, but it was necessary to examine the occupants during investigation of the case as well as to prove the case of the prosecution during the trial of the case. The conduct of the Investigating Officer, therefore, in not associating the other occupants and that of the learned Prosecutor in not producing them during the trial of the case needs to be probed, for which a copy of the judgment be sent to the Principal Secretary(Home) for whatever action he deems necessary to take against the Investigating Officer and the Prosecutor in view of the discussion hereinabove.

In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court do not call for any interference by this Court, as such, the appeal filed by the State is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the Respondent shall stand discharged.