MUKESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way this revision petition, petitioner has challenged the judgment passed by the Court of learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, District Mandi, in Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2008, dated 14.06.2010, vide which learned Appellate Court, while accepting the appeal filed by the State, set aside the judgment of acquittal passed in favour of the petitioner by the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Sundernagar, in Police Challan No. 379-I/2004, dated 18.06.2008 and convicted the petitioner for commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and Sec. 187 of the Motor Vehicle Act (hereinafter referred to as M.V. Act) and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 for commission of offence punishable under Sec. 279 of IPC, simple imprisonment for a period of eighteen months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000.00 for commission of offence punishable under Sec. 304-A of Penal Code and simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 for commission of offence punishable under Sec. 187 of M.V. Act. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The case of the prosecution was that on 30.08.2003, at around 4:15 p.m., accused was driving Scooter bearing No. PB-10Z-3934 in a rash a negligent manner on National Highway-21 resulting in an accident and the death of Smt. Larju Devi at village Bhour after which the accused fled away from the spot. As per prosecution, on the fateful day, complainant Ram Pyari and her mother-in-law Smt. Larju Devi were on their way back home after attending the 'Kirtan' and while walking on the roadside, Smt. Larju Devi was hit by Scooter bearing No. PB-10Z-3934 being driven by accused in a rash and negligent manner which caused fatal injury to her. It was further the case of the prosecution that after causing the accident, accused fled away from the spot leaving Smt. Larju Devi bleeding to death. Information regarding accident was conveyed at police station Sundernagar through police station Balh, on which police party headed by HC Pushap Raj along with HC Karam Singh No. 5, Constable Baldev Lal No. 226 and Constable Ram Lal No. 142 reached the accident site at village Bhour where complainant Ram Pyari get recorded her statement under Sec. 154 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), on the basis of said statement of complainant, FIR No. 217/03 dated 30.08.2003 was registered against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of Penal Code at police station Sundernagar. The body of the deceased was sent for postmortem by the police. During the course of investigation, the offending Scooter was seized along with documents of the same. The scooter was subjected to mechanical examination and report of the mechanic who examined the same mechanically was also obtained, as per which, there was no mechanical fault in the Scooter. Photographs of the accident site were taken, spot map was prepared and statements of witnesses under Sec. 161 of Cr.P.C were recorded by the Investigator. Investigation revealed that death of Smt. Larju Devi took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the accused, who was driving his aforementioned Scooter on aforesaid date, time and place on National Highway No. 21. After the completion of investigation, challan was filed in the court and notice of accusation was put to the accused for commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of Penal Code and Sections 187 and 196 of M.V. Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) On the basis of evidence led by the prosecution both ocular as well as documentary, learned trial Court held that prosecution had failed to prove that the accused had committed offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304- A of Penal Code and Sections 187 and 196 of M.V. Act beyond reasonable doubt and on these bases, learned trial Court acquitted the accused by giving him benefit of doubt. While arriving at the said conclusion, it was held by the learned trial Court that the factum of death of the Smt. Larju Devi on 30.08.2013, at about 4:15 p.m. at village Bhour on National Highway No. 21 was not in dispute. It also took note of the fact that in his statement under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C, accused had admitted that he was driving the said Scooter. It was further held by the learned trial Court that the point for consideration which survived was as to whether the death of Larju Devi was the outcome of rash and negligent driving of the accused or not. Learned trial Court held that the FIR which was registered against the accused was on the basis of complaint of Smt. Ram Pyari recorded by the police under Sec. 154 of Crimial P.C. Ext. PW1/A. Learned trial Court further held that complainant Ram Pyari entered the witness box as PW1 and a perusal of her statement demonstrated that in fact she had not witnessed the accident since she was walking ahead of her mother-in-law when Smt. Larju Devi was hit by the Scooter. Learned trial Court further held that complainant as per her own admission did not saw the Scooter coming and hitting her mother-in-law. On these bases, it was held by the learned trial Court that as the accident took place behind the back of the complainant, her statement to the effect that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the accused becomes a highly improbable version. It further held that since complainant did not saw the accident taking place, therefore, under these circumstances, statement of the complainant to the effect that Scooter was being driven by the accused in a rash and negligent manner and in a high speed was unacceptable. Learned trial Court further held that PW2 Shri Thakru Ram who as per prosecution was an eyewitness also did not further the case of the prosecution since this witness had also admitted that he came to the spot after the Scooter had hit Smt. Larju Devi. It was further held by the learned trial Court that his statement did not clearly establish the manner in which the accident took place. On these bases, it was concluded by the learned trial Court that the statements of PW1 and PW2 did not prove that the accident in fact took place on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the accused. Learned trial Court further held that besides this, there was no evidence whatsoever to clearly establish that the accused in fact had fled away from the spot after causing the accident. On these bases, learned trial Court acquitted the accused by holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.