State of H.P. vs Parkash Chand

Deepak Gupta, J.—This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 13.12.2002 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kinnaur in criminal case No. 43-2 of 2000 whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed an offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 11.5.2000 Smt. Parvati (deceased) alongwith PW/2 P. Mohini had gone to Nugalsari market for purchasing some household articles. When they were returning from the bazaar and had walked for hardly 100 metres from the market, a truck No. HP-06-2402 came from Sholding side in a high speed and struck against Smt. Parvati, as a result of which, she fell down and died at the spot itself. The truck stopped about 40-50 feet ahead. Smt. P. Mohini, PW/2 raised a hue and cry and some people gathered there. During the investigation, it was found that it was the accused who was driving the truck in question. Hence a challan was filed against the accused and the accused was summoned. He was charged for having committed the aforesaid offence. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After trial, the accused has been acquitted. Hence the present appeal.

The entire case of the prosecution revolves around the statement of P. Mohini, PW/2. This witness has admitted that she does not know Hindi and has been living in the Himachal Pradesh for only two to three years.

Even in the Court, she deposed with the help of her husband. There is no material on record to show as to what help was taken by the police while recording the statement of this witness u/s 154, Cr.P.C. Once this witness admittedly did not know Hindi, it was the duty of the police to have ensured that either her husband or some other person knowing her native language was called and with their help, her statement u/s 154, Cr.PC should have been recorded.

This witness does not identify the accused as the driver of the vehicle. She nowhere stated that the vehicle was being driven by the accused. In fact, she has not given the number of the truck. Even PW/5 Sh. Parveen Kumar who is stated to be an eye witness to the said accident did not identify the accused as the same person who was driving the truck in question.

The only witness who positively state that the accused was the driver is PW/4 Sh. A.K. Sharma, Dy.S.P, Assistant Commander of the CSIF. No doubt, this witness stated that the truck, in question, was being driven by the accused but he was not present at the time of the accident. No documentary evidence has been placed on record to show that the accused who was an employee of CSIF was deputed with this truck. If such evidence had been led then the burden may have shifted upon the accused to prove that he was not driving the truck in question. In the absence of any evidence showing that the accused had been deputed on the truck and in the absence of any eye witnesses who could positively identify the driver of the truck, the learned Trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused.

There is no merit in the appeal which is accordingly rejected. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged.