STATE OF H.P. Vs. GURDEEP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Poanta Sahib, dated 18.7.2003, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the notice of accusations put up to him for offences punishable under Sections 279, 304A, 201 I.P.C. and under Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that on 29.7.2000 at about 4.55 P.M., statement of complainant Sanjiv Kumar was recorded at Civil Hospital, Paonta Sahib under Section 154 Cr.P.C. by H.C. Sanjay Kumar, Investigating Officer, Police Station Poanta Sahib. In the said statement, the complainant alleged that he is a truck driver and he was coming alongwith trader Rishi Kumar and at about 4.00 P.M., they reached at Bhuppur, Paonta Sahib, where his brother Shamsher Singh was standing. The complainant parked his truck on one side and he alongwith his son went to meet his brother. When they reached near his shop, a Tempo came from Bhuppur side and hit his son Sumeet Kumar. It was alleged that thereafter Tempo driver ran away from the spot and his son died at the spot at the time of accident. It was alleged that the complainant was talking with his brother Shamsher Singh on one side of the road. He did not suffer any injury, but his son died and the accident took place due to rash or negligent driving of the Tempo driver. On this report, a case was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed before the learned trial Court, who tried the respondent for the offences detailed above, leading to his acquittal.

(3.) ON appraisal of the judgment passed by the learned trial Court, it is clear that it had observed that a specific plea has been taken by the respondent that a boy had tried to cross the road by running and he struck with the Tempo due to his own fault. The learned trial Court had mainly relied upon the testimony of one Nathi Ram DW -1, who was having a Dhaba at the place of accident and he was cited as a prosecution witness, but the prosecution gave him up by making a statement that the witness was repetitive in nature. He was the main eye witness and an independent witness, but the learned Prosecutor did not deem it necessary to examine him and he was given up as repetitive and there was no statement that he has been won over by the accused. Therefore, the conduct of the learned A.P.P. in not examining him cannot be appreciated.