STATE OF H.P. Vs. JAGDISH @ JAGAN NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of acquittal, dtd. 9/6/2017, recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bilaspur, H.P., in case No. 149/2 of 2005, whereby, respondent-accused, came to be acquitted of the charge framed against him under Sec. 279, 337 & 338 of IPC and Sec. 184 & 185 of Motor Vehicles Act, has approached this Court by way of instant proceedings filed under sec. 378 of Cr.P.C., 1973 praying therein to convict respondent-accused after setting aside the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned court below.

(2.) Facts as emerged from the record, are that the FIR Ext. PW-5/B, dtd. 8/12/2016, came to be recorded, on the basis of the statement of PW-1, Satish Kumar, i.e. complainant, recorded under Sec. 154 Cr.P.C., 1973 wherein, he alleged that on 6/1/2005, he after finished his work, parked his vehicle bearing No. HP-34-0637 near the Pipal tree at place called Harnora. He alleged that at that time, two persons were also accompanied with him and at about 1.30 P.M., tractor bearing No. HP-69-0117, being driven by the respondent-accused in rash and negligent manner, came in high speed and struck against his car, as a consequence of which, his car as well as tractor, fell 8 to 10 feet below the road. Complainant, further alleged that in the aforesaid incident, he as well as other occupants of the vehicle namely Jagdish and Jang Bahadur, sustained injuries. In his statement recorded under Sec. 154 Cr.P.C, 1973 he further disclosed that he came to know that name of driver of the tractor as Jagdish Kumar and incident took place due to rash and negligent driving on his part. After completion of investigation, police presented the challan in the competent court of law, who being satisfied that prima facie case exist against the respondent-accused, put notice of accusation to him, for commission of offence punishable under Ss. 279, 337 & 338 of IPC and Ss. 184 and 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claims trial. Subsequently, learned trial court, vide judgment dtd. 9/6/2017, acquitted the respondent-accused of the charge framed against him. In the aforesaid background, appellant-State, has approached this Court by way of instant proceedings, seeking therein his conviction after setting aside the judgment of acquittal, recorded by the learned court below.

(3.) Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Additional Advocate General, while referring to the impugned judgment of acquittal, recorded by the learned court below, vehemently argued that learned court below while acquitting the respondent-accused, had not appreciated the evidence in its right perspective, as a consequence of which, erroneous findings have come on record. To substantiate its aforesaid arguments, Mr. Negi, made this court to travel through the evidence led on record by the prosecution to suggest that there is complete misleading, misinterpretation and misappreciation of evidence by the learned court below. While referring to the report submitted by the FSL qua the blood and urine sample of accused, Mr. Negi, contended that it has specifically come in the report that at the time of accident, respondent-accused, was held influence of liquor and as such, there was no occasion for learned court below to acquit him.