STATE OF H.P. Vs. GORIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State is aggrieved by the judgment dated 7.5.1998 of the trial Court, whereby respondent Goriya, who was sent up for trial for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, has been acquitted.

(2.) CASE of the prosecution, as per trial Court record, is like this. On 20.4.1996 around 8.00 p.m., respondent, who was engaged as a driver on truck No. HPK-1776, had been reversing the said truck at Sataun. Another truck was parked behind his truck. When he was reversing the aforesaid truck, the conductor of his truck, named Kamlesh, got pressed between his truck and the other truck No. HPN-599, which was already parked there. The respondent immediately went to PW-5 Gapa Tashi, the Manager of the firm to which the truck belonged, at his place of business, which is close to the site of the accident. The respondent allegedly told PW-5 Gapa Tashi in the presence of PW-6 Paima Tashi that while he was reversing the truck, conductor Kamlesh got pressed between his truck and truck No. HPN 599, which was parked there.

(3.) THE trial Court has acquitted the respondent holding that there is no eye witness to the accident and thus the case of the prosecution is not proved. The trial Court has ignored the fact that PW-5 Gapa Tashi and PW-6 Paima Tashi had testified that the respondent immediately after the occurrence visited the office of Gapa Tashi and stated that while he was reversing truck No. HPK-1776, conductor of the truck got pressed between the truck, which he was reversing and truck No. HPN 599, which was already parked there. The respondent in his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also admitted this fact. The statement, which the respondent made to Gapa Tashi (PW-5) and Paima Tashi (PW-6) is an admission on his part that the accident took place when he was reversing the truck and that the driver of the other truck, which was already parked there, i.e. truck No. HPN 599, is in no way responsible for the occurrence of the accident. He has not given any explanation as to how Kamlesh got pressed between the truck which he (the respondent) was reversing and the truck that was already parked there. Even though the respondent did not say that the accident took place because of some negligence or rashness on his part, but the facts speaks for themselves. Truck No. HPN 599 was already parked there. The respondent was reversing truck No. HPK-1776. The deceased, who was employed as conductor on truck No. HPK 1776, got pressed between the two trucks. The respondent offers no explanation as to how Kamlesh, the conductor, got pressed in between the two trucks and died.