State of H.P. vs Telu Ram

Surinder Singh, J.—Respondent was acquitted by the learned trial Court in Case No. 42-1 of 1998 decided on 18.2.2003 for the offences under Sections 279, 338 and 201 Indian Penal Code, against which the present appeal has been filed.

Allegations on which the Respondent was put on trial, can be stated thus. On 17.10.1997 at about 9.05 a.m. Respondent was alleged to have been driving the Tempo vehicle bearing Registration No. HP-20-1415 on a public way in a rash or negligent manner so as to endanger human life and on his rash act, hit the scooterist PW-1 Harpal Singh, his left leg got fractured. In the meantime, PW Dr. Minhas happened to pass through the place of accident. Finding Harpal Singh injured, he took him to the Hospital for his treatment.

Police was informed about the accident. PW-6 Head Constable Kulwant Rai reached the Hospital, recorded the statement of PW-1 Harpal Singh u/s 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Ext.PW-1/A on the basis of which FIR was formally registered under the aforesaid Sections. Said Head Constable also visited the spot but neither scooter nor the alleged offending vehicle was on the spot. At the instance of PW-2 Rakesh Kumar, son-in-law of the injured, site plan Ext. PW-6/E was prepared. Statements of the witnesses were also recorded. A broken piece of bumper, of the said scooter was taken into possession. During the later part of the day tempo in question was also located. Respondent produced the documents of the vehicle along with his driving licence. Ultimately the case fell upon him.

The challan was presented in the Court. He was accordingly charge sheeted to which he denied and claimed trial.

Respondent faced trial for the offences aforesaid. His defence was that he was not driving the said vehicle at the relevant time and at the end of the trial he was acquitted mainly on the ground of identification.

Shri J.S. Rana, learned Assistant Advocate General forcefully argued that identification of the Respondent stands fully established as testified on oath by the prosecution witnesses, including the injured. Further that it was a case of hit and run and the Respondent destroyed the evidence by removing the vehicle from the place of accident.

Heard.

I have scanned and re-appraised the evidence on record.

PW-1 Harpal Singh testified that immediately after the accident, he fell unconscious and regained his sense in the Hospital. Police recorded the statement Ext. PW-1/A wherein the name of the Respondent did not find mention except registration number of the tempo. Although he stated that it was Respondent who was driving the tempo in question but in cross examination, he stated that he did not know the Respondent prior to the alleged accident. He was also confronted with his statement Ext. PW-1/A. Similarly PW-2 Rakesh Kumar his son-in-law an Advocate also stated that Respondent was driving the alleged offending vehicle at that time, but even in his earlier statement, u/s 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure name of the Respondent was also not mentioned. He also stated in his cross examination that he did not know the Respondent prior to the accident, and no identification was got conducted, when the Respondent was arrested to substantiate the above version.

Another witness is PW5 Nayajdin an employee of the Deputy Commissioner''s Office, Una. In examination-in-chief, he stated that Respondent was driving the tempo in question but in cross-examination he also stated that he did not know the Respondent prior to the accident. When confronted with the statement Ext. DA, recorded u/s 161 of the Code of Criminal, name of the Respondent was not found mentioned. Then how did he came to know about his name is not explained.

Further, Investigating Officer PW-6 H.C. Kulwant Rai stated that he took the documents of the tempo in question from the Respondent on the same day vide memo Ext. PW-2/C. But he also did not say anywhere that Respondent had admitted the fact that he was driver in the said vehicle. The record reveals that alleged offending vehicle was got released by one Shri Mukhtiyar Singh, who claimed himself to be the owner of the said vehicle, as per his application dated 18.10.1997. Release of the said vehicle was not opposed nor his statement was recorded as to who was the driver of the tempo in question at the relevant time.

In the aforesaid circumstances, prosecution could not prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt against the Respondent. Therefore, the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial court are borne out from the record. As such appeal sans merit hence the same is dismissed.