STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. RAJESHWAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant -State aggrieved by the judgment dated 12th January, 2006, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 2, Dehra, District Kangra in Criminal Case No. 76 -I/2001, 35 -II/2002 whereby the respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') has been acquitted of the charge under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 201 of Indian Penal Code, has preferred this appeal on the grounds, inter -alia, that learned trial Court has based its findings merely on hypothesis, surmises and conjectures. The evidence available on record allegedly is appreciated in a slip -shod and perfunctory manner. The statement of complainant -injured PW -1, Surjeet Singh, who has supported the prosecution case on all counts, has not been appreciated properly. Similarly, the statement of PW -2, Rakesh Kumar, who was pillion rider, has also been erroneously ignored. The other evidence such as report of the mechanic and also the medical evidence, which lends support to the prosecution case, is not at all considered. It has, therefore, been claimed that the impugned judgment is neither legally nor factually sustainable and, as such, deserves to be reversed. The present is a case where notice of accusation under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code with the allegations that on 8.7.2001 at about 9.45 a.m. at a place Baba Panja (Dehrian) in District Kangra the accused while on the wheel of Tata Sumo bearing registration No. HP -02 -8337 and while driving the same in a rash and negligent manner, hit scooter bearing No. PB -08 -776 being driven by complainant, Surjeet Singh PW -1 and occupied by PW -2, Rakesh Kumar pillion rider, caused the accident leading to injuries on the persons of PW -1 and PW -2, grievous in nature and also causing damage to the scooter. Also that with a view to screen him from prosecution ran away from the place of accident with the offending vehicle.

(2.) IT is worthwhile to mention here that in a case of this nature, sine -qua -non, for recording a finding of conviction is criminal rashness and negligence which is more than mere rashness and negligence.

(3.) IF coming to the statement of injured PW -1, he has given the time of accident as 2.30 p.m. PW -2 has stated nothing in his statement about the time of accident and as regards PW -3, according to him, the accident occurred at 1 -1.30 p.m. If coming to Rapat Raojnamcha No. 14, Ex.PW -7/A, the information about the accident was received from Community Health Centre, Jawalamukhi at 3.05 p.m. Although nothing is stated about the time of accident, but the record reveals that the same might have occurred at 2.30 p.m. for the reasons that the suggestions put to the prosecution witnesses in their cross -examination reveal that Dehrian was behind 6 Kms. from Jawalamukhi and the complainant and injured had reached within half an hour in the hospital. The fact, however, remains that when injured were in the hospital by 3.00 p.m., it is not known why their medical examination was delayed upto 6.15 p.m. This shows manipulation and due deliberation on the part of the Investigating Officer and nearer to the defence version that the complainant party being itself responsible for this accident, initially, was not ready to register the case and later on in connivance with the police registered the same to claim compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act. It has come in the statements of PWs.2 and 3 that a petition for award of compensation has been filed in the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Kapurthala. Otherwise also, no tangible evidence suggesting that it is the accused who was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner has come on record.