STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. GURCHARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) STATE has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 22nd December, 1993 passed by the Sub Judicial Magistrate, Sundernagar. As per case of the prosecution, the respondent was driving car bearing registration No. DEC -2994 on the 18th March, 1991. This car was driven in a rash and negligent manner on a public way. When it was coming from Mandi side and was on its way towards Sundernagar, then at a place known as Dhanotu this accident took place at about 6 P.M. As a result of the aforesaid acts of the respondent while driving the car in question on a public way, respondent caused injuries to Smt. Chuhari, to which she succumbed later on in the hospital. It may be appropriate to mention here that the death as per prosecution was the immediate result of the injuries sustained by the deceased in the accident in question.

(2.) THIS fact came to the knowledge of Addl. S.H.O., S.I. Karam Singh (PW.6). He sent a ruqua, which led to registration of the case Ex. PW.6/D at Police Station vide F.I.R. No. 123/91. In these circumstances, investigation of the case was undertaken by the police. Trial Court being satisfied that there is prima facie material to proceed against the respondent, issued notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C., to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial which resulted in acquittal. Hence, this appeal at the instance of the State.

(3.) IN this case, eye witnesses are PW.1 Shri Chet Ram and Shri Devi Singh (PW.3) as projected by the prosecution during the course of the trial below. When a reference is made to the statement of PW.1, he has spoken that a jeep was involved in the accident, which was witnessed by him. He has also admitted in his cross -examination that he can distinguish between a car, a jeep, a truck and a bus. On the other hand, the other so called eye witness Shri Devi Singh has spoken that a car having been involved in the accident. This is a major and material contradiction in the accident regarding the vehicle which caused the accident in question. It hardly needs to be emphasized that the distinction of a car and jeep is quite obvious. In case, both PW.1 and PW.3 were present on the spot when accident took place, ordinarily, they would have said so in one voice about the vehicle that was involved in the accident.