KARAM CHAND Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, in Criminal Appeal No. 46- P/05/03, dtd. 18/8/2007, vide which learned Appellate Court, while dismissing the appeal so filed by the present petitioner, has upheld the judgment passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. (II), Palampur, in Criminal Case RBT No. 101-II/2000, dtd. 11/6/2003 whereby learned trial Court had convicted the present petitioner for commission of offences punishable under Ss. 279 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000.00 under Sec. 279 of IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000.00 under Sec. 304-A of IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief was that on 20/11/1999, at about 1:00 p.m., accused Karam Chand was driving Maruti Van bearing registration No. HP-02-4231 on a public way which vehicle was being driven by him in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, said vehicle struck against Premi Devi (deceased) near Bari, who was using the road as a pedestrian. As a result Smt. Premi Devi died on the spot. On information so provided by Shri Gandhi Ram at Police Post Bhavarna, Rapat No. 12, dtd. 20/11/1999 was entered in daily diary. Thereafter Head Constable Baldev Singh visited the spot and recorded the statement of Shri Sarwan Kumar i.e. son of the deceased under Sec. 154 of Cr.P.C. On the basis of statement of Sarwan Kumar, FIR was registered. During the course of investigation, site plan was prepared and Maruti Van involved in the accident was taken into possession alongwith documents and driving licence of accused. Postmortem of dead body of Premi Devi was got conducted at Civil Hospital, Palampur. Photographs of the site were taken. Vehicle in question was got mechanically examined and report of mechanic was also obtained by the Investigating Officer. Statements of witnesses were also recorded in the course of investigation by the Investigating Officer. 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 Ss. 279 and 304-A of IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) Learned trial Court vide its judgment dtd. 11/6/2003 held that the prosecution evidence on record proved beyond all reasonable doubt that accused was driving the Maruti Van bearing registration No. HP-02-4231 in a rash and negligent manner on 20/11/1999 on a public highway and the same hit pedestrian Premi Devi who died on account said accident when the vehicle reached near Bari on the fateful day. Learned trial Court convicted the accused for commission of offences punishable under Ss. 279 and 304-A of IPC. While arriving at the said conclusion, it was held by the learned trial Court that the accident was witnessed by PW1 Sarwan Kumar who was walking alongwith Premi Devi at the relevant time, who specifically disclosed the number of the vehicle as HP-02-4231 which was coming from the side of Daroh in excessive speed and hit his mother and caused her death. Learned trial Court however took note of the fact that this witness had deposed that Van was being driven by its driver in a negligent manner but he did not recognize driver of the same as driver had fled away from the spot and he later on came to know that driver of the offending Van was Karam Chand. Learned trial Court held that the deposition of PW1 was natural and reliable and his version was further corroborated by information which was received in the Police Station, which was duly incorporated in the daily diary after the occurrence of the accident on 20/11/1999 Ext. PA. Learned trial Court also held that factum of accident having occurred with the offending Van whereby death of Premi Devi was caused was not disputed on the date of occurrence. Learned trial Court further held that in fact defence of the accused was that he was not driving the Van in question on the relevant day whereas owner of the offending Van PW6 Balkrishan had proved the factum of driving of offending Van by the accused on the relevant date and that the accident thus stood proved to have taken place with the same Van and there was no circumstance to implicate the accused falsely. Learned trial Court held that factum of PW6 having deposed that he had deployed three drivers, namely, Ram Swaroop, Karam Chand and Prittam Chand was of no assistance to accused as PW6 had categorically stated that it was the accused who was driving the offending Van on the relevant day. Learned trial Court also held that PW3 Mehar Singh had also clearly deposed that when owner of the offending Van PW6 Bal Krishan reached the spot, he disclosed that driver of the vehicle was the accused. Learned trial Court took note of the fact that this narration of PW3 was not controverted in the course of his cross examination. On these bases, it was held by the learned trial Court that the statements of PW3 and PW6 categorically proved that the Van in issue with which the accident was caused was being driven at the relevant time and place by the accused. It further held that conduct of the accused of absconding from the spot after stopping the offending vehicle further proved the factum of his being rash and negligent while driving the offending vehicle which hit deceased Premi Devi and caused her death. On these bases, learned trial Court held that prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and convicted and sentenced the accused for commission of offences punishable under Ss. 279 and 304-A of IPC.