STATE OF H.P. Vs. MOHINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jogindernagar, District Mandi, H.P., vide which the respondent was acquitted of the notice of accusation put up against him for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that on 3.12.1991, at 2.30 p.m., SHO Police Station, Jogindernagar recorded a statement of one Chuni Lal under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. In the said statement, he alleged that he had taken his truck, had unloaded the sand and parked it on the road side. The Cleaner of the truck got down and was closing the dala of the truck. A truck bearing No.HID -485 came at a fast speed, struck against his standing truck, with the result that the Cleaner Shyam Lal fell on the road and died at the spot. It was alleged that the accident had taken placed due to the rash or negligent driving of the driver of the said truck. On this statement, a case was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed before the learned trial Court. Notice of accusation was put up to the respondent, as detailed above, who was tried by the learned trial Court leading to his acquittal.

(3.) ON appraisal of the record of the case, it is clear that the prosecution had examined 7 witnesses in all to substantiate their case. The statements of two eye witnesses examined in this case can be said to be most material. PW -2 is Chuni Lal, complainant, who made statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C., who was the driver of the truck which had been parked on the road side and with which the truck of the respondent had struck at the spot. He stated that Shyam Lal was Conductor with him, who was fixing the dala and the truck bearing No.HID -485 came from back side, struck against Shyam Lal and the truck standing there and his truck was pushed 4 feet ahead. He further stated that the truck was being driven by the respondent present in court. He did not state that the respondent was driving the truck rashly or negligently, but he only stated about the fact that this truck struck with his standing truck. In cross examination, he stated that he had seen the driver standing at the spot only but has not stated that when he was standing by the road side, he saw the accused driving the truck, which had struck with his standing truck. He stated that the accused had run away from the spot. However, no questions were put to him by the learned Public Prosecutor as to how he learnt about the name of the accused, when he learnt about the name of the accused or that he apprehended the accused at the spot and handed over him to the police. His statement rather shows that the accused had run away from the spot and was not known to him earlier, but how he learnt about the name or when he identified him, it is difficult to conclude. He stated that the accused was not known to him and he had seen the accused today only after the date of accident, which clearly suggests that no identification parade of the accused was conducted or the accused was ever shown by the police to him during the investigation of the case. In his cross examination, he has clearly stated that he was not knowing the name of the accused and learnt his name three days after the lodging of the report. However, he did not state from whom he learnt about the name of the driver or how he ascertained the identity of the driver i.e. the respondent, who was allegedly driving the truck at the relevant time.