SURESH CHANDRA GANGWAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revisionist is the driver of the Tractor bearing registration no.UP-21G-3445 of Mahendra make. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 24.01.2006, wherein the son of the complainant-Gopali Ram, namely Prem Pal, who on that date of incident was of 18 years of age and is said to have been traveling on the tractor by sitting on the mudguard and it was the case of the complainant that when the tractor was near Darau and was moving towards Kiccha it was on account of rash and negligent driving of the revisionist, it is complained that the same has skidded off the road near village Chinki resulting into Prem Pal falling down the tractor and hence, ultimately he come under the wheels of the tractor and it has resulted into his death. It has been mentioned that one Mr. Sahid Khan son of Mr. Chanda Miya and Tejram, who were the resident of the same village and were sitting on the trolly of the tractor, which was being driven by the revisionist, were the eye witnesses, of the accident, who had seen the accident. When after the submission of the charge sheet when the offence was being tried, the learned trial court of First Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, on considering the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., as well as after complying with the procedure of providing the statement and other substance of accusation under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The trial commenced though the incident itself was denied by the revisionist, that no such accident has occurred but since the eye witnesses of the accident, who were traveling on the trolley of the tractor on the same day had recorded their statements before the learned court below as PW1 and PW2 and furthermore because the cause of the death was also affirmed by the medical report submitted by the doctor Heera Singh Hyanki, who was PW6, he has recorded the statement that he had conducted the post mortem and had found two injuries which was the major cause of death of the deceased and also the statement of the other police officials, who were involved and part in the investigation, it was found that the revisionist was involved in the commission of an offence by way of his rash and negligent driving of the tractor involved the accident. As far as the presence of elements of Section 279 IPC is concerned that was established by the defence witnesses, who were present on the spot, who had seen the accident and who have fortified the fact that the tractor apart from the fact that it was being driven in alleged rash and negligent manner due to which the tractor has skidded off the road and in view of the statements recorded by the prosecution witnesses and also the statements as recorded by the revisionist under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the trial court has held that on consideration of the statement of PW1 Gopali Ram, who had submitted that the accident had occurred on 24.01.2006, when the deceased was traveling on the tractor it was on account of the rash and negligent driving of the tractor in question that due to jerks suffered by Prem Pal, when the tractor skidded off the road, it has resulted into the accident, ultimately was the cause of his death.

(2.) After submission of charge sheet by the Investigating Officer in relation to the commission of an offence under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and during the course of the proceedings, the revisionist was provided with all the documents which was to be read against him by the prosecution and after compliance of the provisions contained under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, though there happens to be a denial of incident by the revisionist but the surrounding circumstances, and the evidence as brought on record in particular the statement, which was adduced by the prosecution, which included the statement of PW2 Tejpal, PW3 Sahid, who were the eye witnesses of the accident and who at the relevant point of time were traveling in the trolley attached to the tractor, had supported the prosecution case about the accident resulting into the death of the complainant's son. Furthermore, if the statement of PW5 and Dr. Heera Singh is taken into consideration, he supported the prosecution case from the view point that as a consequence of the accident it has resulted into the fracture of pelvic girdle of the deceased resulting into bursting of his urinary bladder, which has been attributed as to the cause of accident.

(3.) The parties to the proceedings, in support of their respective contention, has made reference to the authorities as , Pradeep Kumar vs. State of Uttaranchal,2006 1 UC 197. It was from the view point that as to what would be the impact of admissibility of the statement recorded by the witnesses. It has been recorded that the conviction of a person exclusively based on the testimony of interested witness, as it cannot attach validity to the conviction and the conviction cannot be based solely upon the statement of interested witnesses. The said judgment which was placed reliance before the court below may not have any implication in the instant case for the reason that the ratio as propounded therein is dealt in the said judgment in its para 13, which is quoted hereunder:-