HEMANT KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present criminal revision petition filed under Sections 397 Crimial P.C. is directed against judgment dated 30.8.2011 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, HP in Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 2010, upholding the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.2, Mandi, HP in Police Challan No. 190-I/2003, 119-II/2003, holding petitioner-accused (herein after, 'accused') guilty of having committed offence under Sections 279, 337 and 338 Penal Code and convicting and sentencing the accused as per the description given herein below:

(2.) Briefly stated the facts as emerge from the record are that the complainant namely Netar Singh made a statement that on 25.3.2003 at 5.45 pm, he boarded a private bus (Bharat Service) bearing No. HP-32- 4140 in order to go to his house. There were 25-30 passengers. When at around 6.15, the bus reached near Bajeer Bain, it rolled down in a gorge, as a result of which, he as well as other passengers suffered injuries. Complainant, further complained that at the relevant time, vehicle in question was being driven by the accused in rash and negligent manner and in high speed. On the basis of aforesaid statement, police sent a Rukka, on the basis of which, FIR No. 96/2003 dated 25.3.2003 came to be registered at Police Station Balh, District Mandi. Police after completion of codal formalities, submitted challan in the Court against the accused under Sections 279, 337 and 338 Penal Code. Learned trial Court, on being satisfied that prima facie case exists against the accused, put notice of accusation to him, to which he pleaded no guilty and claimed trial. Subsequently, learned trial Court, on the basis of material adduced by the prosecution, convicted and sentenced the accused under sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC, as per description given above. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of learned trial Court, accused filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, under Sec. 374 CrPC, which was also dismissed. In the aforesaid background, accused has approached this Court by way of instant petition, praying therein for acquittal after setting aside the judgments of the Courts below.

(3.) Mr. Rohit Chauhan, Advocate, vehemently argued that the judgments passed by the Courts below are not sustainable as the same are not based on correct appreciation of evidence adduced on record and as such same deserve to be set aside. Mr. Chauhan, while referring to the judgments passed by the Courts below, strenuously argued that the Courts below have not appreciated the evidence in its right perspective, rather judgments are based on conjectures and surmises and as such same can not be allowed to sustain. Mr. Chauhan, during arguments having been made by him, made this Court to travel through the depositions have been made by the prosecution witnesses, to demonstrate that no conviction could be imposed by the Court below on the set of evidence having been adduced by the prosecution, because there were material contradictions and majority of prosecution witnesses had turned hostile. While referring to the statement of PW-1, Netar Singh, Mr. Chauhan, stated that even the complainant, nowhere stated with regard to specific speed of the vehicle at the relevant time, as such, Courts below erred in concluding that at the relevant time, vehicle in question was being driven in rash and negligent manner by the accused, that too at a high speed. While concluding his arguments, Mr. Chauhan, forcefully contended that the learned Courts below miserably failed to take note of the fact that at the relevant time, one cow had come before the bus, as a result of which, accused had to take sudden turn. In the aforesaid background, Mr. Chauhan prayed that accused may be acquitted of the charges framed against him by setting aside the judgments of the Courts below.